Staphylococcal biofilm growth on smooth and porous titanium coatings for biomedical applications
Corresponding Author
Annabel Braem
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering (MTM), KU Leuven, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
Correspondence to: A. Braem; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorLieve Van Mellaert
Laboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Rega Institute for Medical Research, KU Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorTina Mattheys
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering (MTM), KU Leuven, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorDorien Hofmans
Laboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Rega Institute for Medical Research, KU Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorEvelien De Waelheyns
Laboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Rega Institute for Medical Research, KU Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorLiesbet Geris
Biomechanics Research Unit, U.Liège, Chemin des Chevreuils 1 - BAT 52/3, B-4000 Liège 1 Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorJozef Anné
Laboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Rega Institute for Medical Research, KU Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorJan Schrooten
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering (MTM), KU Leuven, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorJef Vleugels
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering (MTM), KU Leuven, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Annabel Braem
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering (MTM), KU Leuven, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
Correspondence to: A. Braem; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorLieve Van Mellaert
Laboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Rega Institute for Medical Research, KU Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorTina Mattheys
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering (MTM), KU Leuven, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorDorien Hofmans
Laboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Rega Institute for Medical Research, KU Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorEvelien De Waelheyns
Laboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Rega Institute for Medical Research, KU Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorLiesbet Geris
Biomechanics Research Unit, U.Liège, Chemin des Chevreuils 1 - BAT 52/3, B-4000 Liège 1 Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorJozef Anné
Laboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Rega Institute for Medical Research, KU Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorJan Schrooten
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering (MTM), KU Leuven, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorJef Vleugels
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering (MTM), KU Leuven, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Implant-related infections are a serious complication in prosthetic surgery, substantially jeopardizing implant fixation. As porous coatings for improved osseointegration typically present an increased surface roughness, their resulting large surface area (sometimes increasing with over 700% compared to an ideal plane) renders the implant extremely susceptible to bacterial colonization and subsequent biofilm formation. Therefore, there is particular interest in orthopaedic implantology to engineer surfaces that combine both the ability to improve osseointegration and at the same time reduce the infection risk. As part of this orthopaedic coating development, the interest of in vitro studies on the interaction between implant surfaces and bacteria/biofilms is growing. In this study, the in vitro staphylococcal adhesion and biofilm formation on newly developed porous pure Ti coatings with 50% porosity and pore sizes up to 50 μm is compared to various dense and porous Ti or Ti-6Al-4V reference surfaces. Multiple linear regression analysis indicates that surface roughness and hydrophobicity are the main determinants for bacterial adherence. Accordingly, the novel coatings display a significant reduction of up to five times less bacterial surface colonization when compared to a commercial state-of-the-art vacuum plasma sprayed coating. However, the results also show that a further expansion of the porosity with over 15% and/or the pore size up to 150 μm is correlated to a significant increase in the roughness parameters resulting in an ascent of bacterial attachment. Chemically modifying the Ti surface in order to improve its hydrophilicity, while preserving the average roughness, is found to strongly decrease bacteria quantities, indicating the importance of surface functionalization to reduce the infection risk of porous coatings. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 102A: 215–224, 2014.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.
Filename | Description |
---|---|
jbma34688-sup-0001-SuppInfo.tif24.4 MB | Supporting Information Figure S1 |
jbma34688-sup-0002-SuppInfo.eps21.7 KB | Supporting Information Figure S2 |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 780–785.
- 2Bozic KJ, Katz P, Cisternas M, Ono L, Ries MD, Showstack J. Hospital resource utilization for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 570–576.
- 3Urquhart DM, Hanna F, Graves S, Wang Y, Cameron P, Hannaford A, Cicuttini FM. In-hospital outcomes and hospital resource utilization of hip replacement procedures. ANZ J Surg 2008; 78: 875–880.
- 4 Data obtained from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: Annual report 2010. http://nrlweb.ihelse.net [accessed on 31.08.2011].
- 5Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 128–133.
- 6Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Chiu V, Vail TP, Rubash HE, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 45–51.
- 7Kurtz SM, Lau E, Schmier J, Ong KL, Zhao K, Parvizi J. Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23: 984–991.
- 8Campoccia D, Montanaro L, Arciola CR. The significance of infection related to orthopaedic devices and issues of antibiotic resistance. Biomaterials 2006; 27: 2331–2339.
- 9Costerton JW. Biofilm theory can guide the treatment of device-related orthopaedic infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 437: 7–11.
- 10Costerton JW, Montanaro L, Arciola CR. Biofilm in implant infections: its production and regulation. Int J Artif Organs 2005; 28: 1062–1068.
- 11Arciola CR, Alvi FI, An YH, Campoccia D, Montanaro L. Implant infection and infection resistant materials: a mini review. Int J Artif Organs 2005; 28: 1119–1125.
- 12Percival SL, Hill KE, Malic S, Thomas DW, Williams DW. Antimicrobial tolerance and the significance of persister cells in recalcitrant chronic wound biofilms. Wound Repair Regen 2011; 19: 1–9.
- 13Arciola CR, Campoccia D, Speziale P, Montanaro L, Costerton JW. Biofilm formation in Staphylococcus implant infections. A review of molecular mechanisms and implications for biofilm-resistant materials. Biomaterials 2012; 33: 5967–5982.
- 14Geetha M, Singh AK, Asokamani R, Gogia AK. Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate choice for orthopaedic implants – A review. Prog Mater Sci 2009; 54: 397–425.
- 15Joseph TN, Chen AL, Di Cesare PE. Use of antibiotic-impregnated cement in total joint arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2003; 11: 38–47.
- 16Berry DJ, Bozic KJ. Current practice patterns in primary hip and knee arthroplasty among members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25( 6): 2–4.
- 17Cummins JS, Tomek IM, Kantor SR, Furnes O, Engesæter LB, Finlayson SRG. Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement used in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 634–641.
- 18Ryan G, Pandit A, Apatsidis DP. Fabrication methods of porous metals for use in orthopaedic applications. Biomaterials 2006; 27: 2651–2670.
- 19Otsuki B, Takemoto M, Fujibayashi S, Neo M, Kokubo T, Nakamura T. Pore throat size and connectivity determine bone and tissue ingrowth into porous implants: three-dimensional micro-CT based structural analyses of porous bioactive titanium implants. Biomaterials 2006; 27: 5892–5900.
- 20Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 5474–5491.
- 21Itälä AI, Ylänen HO, Ekholm C, Karlsson KH, Aro HT. Pore diameter of more than 100 μm is not requisite for bone ingrowth in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 58: 679–683.
- 22Wazen RM, Lefebvre LP, Baril E, Nanci A. Initial evaluation of bone ingrowth into a novel porous titanium coating. J Biomed Mater Res Appl Biomater 2010; 94B: 64–71.
- 23Baril E, Lefebvre LP, Hacking SA. Direct visualization and quantification of bone growth into porous titanium implants using micro computed tomography. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2011; 22: 1321–1332.
- 24Harris LG, Richards RG. Staphylococci and implant surfaces: a review. Injury 2006; 37: s3–s14.
- 25Neut D, Dijkstra RJB, Thompson JI, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. A gentamicin-releasing coating for cementless hip prostheses—longitudinal evaluation of efficacy using in vitro bio-optical imaging and its wide-spectrum antibacterial efficacy. J Biomed Mater Res A 2012;doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.34258.
- 26Wu Y, Zitelli JP, TenHuisen KS, Yu X, Libera MR. Differential response of Staphylococci and osteoblasts to varying titanium surface roughness. Biomaterials 2011; 32: 951–960.
- 27Puckett SD, Taylor E, Raimondo T, Webster TJ. The relationship between the nanostructure of titanium surfaces and bacterial attachment. Biomaterials 2010; 31: 706–713.
- 28Barbour ME, O'Sullivan DJ, Jenkinson HF, Jagger DC. The effects of polishing methods on surface morphology, roughness and bacterial colonization of titanium abutments. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007; 18: 1439–1447.
- 29Rodríguez-Hernández AG, Juárez A, Engel E, Gil FJ. Streptococcus sanguinis adhesion on titanium rough surfaces: effect of shot-blasting particles. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2011; 22: 1913–1922.
- 30Ercan B, Kummer KM, Tarquinio KM, Webster TJ. Decreased Staphylococcus aureus biofilm growth on anodized nanotubular titanium and the effect of electrical stimulation. Acta Biomater 2011; 7: 3003–3012.
- 31Belcarz A, Bienias J, Surowska B, Ginalska G. Studies of bacterial adhesion on TiN, SiO2-TiO2 and hydroxyapatite thin layers deposited on titanium and Ti6Al4V alloy for medical applications. Thin Solid Films 2010; 519: 797–803.
- 32Yoshinari M, Oda Y, Kato T, Okuda K, Hirayama A. Influence of surface modifications to titanium on oral bacterial adhesion in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res 2000; 52: 388–394.
- 33Fröjd V, Chávez de Paz L, Andersson M, Wennerberg A, Davies JR, Svensäter G. In situ analysis of multispecies biofilm formation on customized titanium surfaces. Molec Oral Microbiol 2011; 26: 241–252.
- 34Braem A, Mattheys T, Neirinck B, Schrooten J, Van der Biest O, Vleugels J. Porous titanium coatings through electrophoretic deposition of TiH2 suspensions. Adv Eng Mater 2011; 13: 509–515.
- 35Mattheys T, Braem A, Neirinck B, Van der Biest O, Vleugels J. Ti coatings with macropores for improved implant fixation obtained by electrophoretic deposition of TiH2 stabilised emulsions. Adv Eng Mater 2012; 14: 371–376.
- 36Gasik M, Van Mellaert L, Pierron D, Braem A, Hofmans D, De Waelheyns E, Anné J, Harmand M-F, Vleugels J. Reduction of biofilm infection risks and promotion of osteointegration for optimized surfaces of titanium implants. Adv Healthc Mater 2012; 1( 1): 117–127.
- 37Chaudhari A, Braem A, Vleugels J, Martens JA, Naert I, Vivan Cardoso M, Duyck J. Bone tissue response to porous and functionalized titanium and silica based coatings. PloS ONE 2011; 6:doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024186.
- 38Bouazza S, Fuchs E, Rosin A, Willert-Porada M. Synthesis and properties of graded porous Ti-TiO2 multifunctional composites obtained by different processing methods. In: A Kawasaki, A Kumakawa, M Niino, editors. 10th International Symposium on Multiscale, Multifunctional and Functionally Graded Materials;22–25 September 2008; Sendai, Japan. Zürich: Trans tech publ. Materials Science Forum; 2010. vol. 631–632:p. 141–146.
- 39Nishimura S, Tsurumoto T, Yonekura A, Adachi K, Shindo H. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms isolated from infected total hip arthroplasty cases. J Orthop Sci 2006; 11: 46–50.
- 40Bruinsma GM, Rustema-Abbing M, de Vries J, Busscher HJ, van der Linden ML, Hooymans JMM, van der Mei HC. Multiple surface properties of worn RGP lenses and adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Biomaterials 2003; 24: 1663–1670.
- 41Bakker DP, Busscher HJ, van Zanten J, de Vries J, Klijnstra JW, van der Mei H. Multiple linear regression analysis of bacterial deposition to polyurethane coatings after conditioning film formation in the marine environment. Microbiology 2004; 150: 1779–1784.
- 42Chin MYH, Sandham A, Pratten J, De Vries J, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Multivariate analysis of surface physico-chemical properties controlling biofilm formation on orthodontic adhesives prior to and after fluoride and chlorhexidine treatment. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2006; 78B: 401–408.
- 43Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15: 331–344.
- 44Giljean S, Bigerelle M, Anselme K, Haidara H. New insights on contact angle/roughness dependence on high surface energy materials. Appl Surf Sci 2011; 257: 9631–9638.
- 45An YH, Friedman RJ. Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res (Appl Biomater) 1998; 43: 338–348.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199823)43:3<338::AID-JBM16>3.0.CO;2-B CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 46Katsikogianni M, Missirlis YF. Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterials and of techniques used in estimating bacteria–material interaction. Eur Cell Mater 2004; 8: 37–57.
- 47Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Imp Res 2006; 17: 68–81.