ArticlePloS one2023
Transforming medical device biofilm control with surface treatment using microfabrication techniques.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Assessment of Fungal Biofilm Development on PEEK and PDMS Biomaterials and the Antifungal Potential of TiOMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Non-Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- VScientific reports · 2025Article
- A simple silicone elastomer colonization model highlights complexities ofJournal of medical microbiology · 2025Article
- Additive Manufacturing, Thermoplastics, CAD Technology, and Reverse Engineering in Orthopedics and Neurosurgery-Applications to Preventions and Treatment of Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Synergistic Activity of Vancomycin and Gentamicin AgainstMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Medical Device-Associated Infections Caused by Biofilm-Forming Microbial Pathogens and Controlling Strategies.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biofilm deposition on indwelling medical devices and implanted biomaterials is frequently attributed to the prevalence of resistant infections in humans. Further, the nature of persistent infections is widely believed to have a biofilm etiology. In this study, the wettability of commercially available indwelling medical devices was explored for the first time, and its effect on the formation of biofilm was determined in vitro. Surprisingly, all tested indwelling devices were found to be hydrophilic, with surface water contact angles ranging from 60° to 75°. First, we established a thriving Candida albicans biofilm growth at 24 hours. in YEPD at 30°C and 37°C plus serum in vitro at Cyclic olefin copolymer (COC) modified surface, which was subsequently confirmed via scanning electron microscopy, while their cellular metabolic function was assessed using the XTT cell viability assay. Surfaces with patterned wettability show that a contact angle of 110° (hydrophobic) inhibits C. albicans planktonic and biofilm formation completely compared to robust growth at a contact angle of 40° (hydrophilic). This finding may provide a novel antimicrobial strategy to prevent biofilm growth and antimicrobial resistance on indwelling devices and prosthetic implants. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the surface characteristics of medical devices and their potential impact on biofilm formation, leading to the development of improved approaches to control and prevent microbial biofilms and re-infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.