The Impact of Incorporating Antimicrobials into Implant Surfaces
- PMID: 28922615
- PMCID: PMC5755811
- DOI: 10.1177/0022034517731768
The Impact of Incorporating Antimicrobials into Implant Surfaces
Abstract
With the increase in numbers of joint replacements, spinal surgeries, and dental implantations, there is an urgent need to combat implant-associated infection. In addition to stringent sterile techniques, an efficacious way to prevent this destructive complication is to create new implants with antimicrobial properties. Specifically, these implants must be active in the dental implant environment where the implant is bathed in the glycoprotein-rich salivary fluids that enhance bacterial adhesion, and propagation, and biofilm formation. However, in designing an antimicrobial surface, a balance must be struck between antimicrobial activity and the need for the implant to interact with the bone environment. Three types of surfaces have been designed to combat biofilm formation, while attempting to maintain osseous interactions: 1) structured surfaces where topography, usually at the nanoscale, decreases bacterial adhesion sufficiently to retard establishment of infection; 2) surfaces that actively elute antimicrobials to avert bacterial adhesion and promote killing; and 3) surfaces containing permanently bonded agents that generate antimicrobial surfaces that prevent long-term bacterial adhesion. Both topographical and elution surfaces exhibit varying, albeit limited, antimicrobial activity in vitro. With respect to covalent coupling, we present studies on the ability of the permanent antimicrobial surfaces to kill organisms while fostering osseointegration. All approaches have significant drawbacks with respect to stability and efficacy, but the permanent surfaces may have an edge in creating a long-term antibacterial environment.
Keywords: antibacterial surfaces; antibiotics; biofilm; dental implants; implant-associated infection; osseointegration.
Conflict of interest statement
NJH and IMS have intellectual property associated with part of this work. The authors declare no other potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Figures
References
-
- Aggarwal VK, Bakhshi H, Ecker NU, Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Kendoff D. 2014. Organism profile in periprosthetic joint infection: pathogens differ at two arthroplasty infection referral centers in Europe and in the United States. J Knee Surg. 27(5):399–406. - PubMed
-
- American Academy of Implant Dentistry. 2017. Dental implants facts and figures. http://www.aaid.com/about/press_room/dental_implants_faq.html
-
- Antoci V, Jr, Adams CS, Hickok NJ, Shapiro IM, Parvizi J. 2007. a. Antibiotics for local delivery systems cause skeletal cell toxicity in vitro. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 462:200–206. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
