Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 2668 2023-10-07 13:12:16 |
2 format Meta information modification 2668 2023-10-08 04:09:46 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Esposito, M.M.; Glazer, J.R.; Turku, S. 3D Printing and Nanotechnologies in Biofilms. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 14 April 2024).
Esposito MM, Glazer JR, Turku S. 3D Printing and Nanotechnologies in Biofilms. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed April 14, 2024.
Esposito, Michelle Marie, Jonathan Robert Glazer, Sara Turku. "3D Printing and Nanotechnologies in Biofilms" Encyclopedia, (accessed April 14, 2024).
Esposito, M.M., Glazer, J.R., & Turku, S. (2023, October 07). 3D Printing and Nanotechnologies in Biofilms. In Encyclopedia.
Esposito, Michelle Marie, et al. "3D Printing and Nanotechnologies in Biofilms." Encyclopedia. Web. 07 October, 2023.
3D Printing and Nanotechnologies in Biofilms

Biofilms remain one of the most pervasive complications of the medical field, representing 50–70% of all nosocomial infections and up to 80% of total microbial infections. Since biofilms contain intricately small matrices, different microenvironments, and accumulations of biodiverse microorganisms of different resistances, these structures end up being difficult to target.

biofilms nosocomial 3D printing nanotechnology

1. Introduction

With the advent of 3D printing and nanotechnologies, the possibilities to develop more versatile materials in the medical industry have vastly increased. Polymer printing and nanomaterials in the medical field provide cost-effective means to quickly produce a wide variety of highly customizable products, which include bone tissue scaffolds of enhanced strength, cardiovascular tissues and stents, patient-specific anatomical models for precision medicine, and microbe-resistant devices [1][2][3][4]. Nanoparticles have already proven themselves to be powerful and effective tools in the diagnostic and therapeutic targeting of illnesses such as chronic kidney disease [5]. Although there are concerns about the potential for some toxic adverse effects upon collection of these materials in the human body, new green or ecologically clean forms of nanoparticles help prevent or alleviate these concerns to be able to capitalize on their valuable medical potential [6][7]. Due to the versatility of such materials, this has opened up new opportunities in the development of medical equipment and implants that can prevent the formation of biofilms [8].
Biofilms are large multi-species matrices of bacteria or other microorganisms collecting together on surfaces through extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), creating enhanced cohesion and layers of highly resistant protection [9]. These biofilms tend to include bacteria that can thrive on both abiotic and biotic surfaces, with abilities to evade antibiotics or disinfectants through physical shielding as well as a variety of resistance genes obtained through lateral gene transfer in the biofilm community [10]. When cells are part of a biofilm matrix community, they have been found to have nearly 100 to 1000 times greater resistance to antimicrobials (antibiotics and disinfectants/antiseptics) compared to when they are found in their planktonic form [11][12][13]. This resistance is of growing concern in the medical field, as infections that arise from hospitalization or medical treatments are labeled as nosocomial infections, and it is estimated by the NIH and CDC that more than sixty percent of nosocomial infections are caused by biofilms [14][15]. Biofilms present many dangers in the medical field, including chronic infections with implanted devices, intravenous access line-induced bloodstream infections, surgically implanted mesh infections, orthodontic complications, and orthopedic complications [16][17][18][19][20]. Due to these significant problems, various mechanisms have been studied to reduce the dangers people face from these persistent pathogens. One area of study that has been explored is to interfere with cyclic dimeric guanosine monophosphate (c-di-GMP) metabolism and signaling, as this molecule serves as a second messenger mediating bacterial processes, including the formation of biofilms [21].

2. Use of 3D Printing to Target Biofilms in Dentistry Industry

While organ or tissue transplant and implant technologies are critical areas prone to biofilm infiltration, it is important to note that dental and orthodontic procedures also carry a major potential for biofilm risks. Dentures, retainers, occlusal splints, crowns, bridges, and other oral prostheses are all highly susceptible to microbial biofilm colonization [22][23]. The use of 3D printing technology in this field has a multi-fold benefit as it provides versatility to produce patient-specific prostheses while also providing more highly resistant material options to reduce infections in a more cost-effective and time-efficient manner [22].
In the dental industry, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) has been one of the most commonly used polymers for oral prostheses since its introduction in 1937 [22][24]. PMMA has long provided the benefits of natural aesthetics matching original dental characteristics, widespread availability, biocompatibility, light-curability, cost efficiency, and easy malleability of processing and repair [22][24]. Unfortunately, however, PMMA also suffers from the downside of high susceptibility to microbial growth, including its prime surface propensity for biofilm formation [22]. Enhancing antimicrobial resistance of 3D printed materials is critical, as it has been shown that while 3D printing allows for the benefit of developing personalized, well-fitted implants, in cases of printing plates for dental and craniofacial jaw or dental implants, the roughness and pores produced compared to commercial plates or implants increase bacterial adhesion for biofilms, especially with contamination during surgery [25]. To overcome this weakness, one study utilized 3D printing to produce a PMMA-based formulation that incorporated 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC) and sulfobetaine methacrylate (SB), which are zwitterionic materials [22]. The zwitterionic nature of these materials means they have cationic and anionic portions with an overall neutral charge and electrostatic interactions that lead to protein-repellent and antimicrobial properties [22]. Protein-repellent properties are significant for biofilm prevention as proteins, such as CdrA extracellular adhesin, are a major component of the extracellular polymeric substances that comprise the biofilm matrix [26][27]. When tested against early biofilm colonizers, Streptococcus mutans, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella oxytoca, and Klebsiella pneumoniae, as well as human saliva-derived biofilms, 3D printed MPC/SB-enhanced PMMA showed significantly lower amounts of attached bacteria than the control (PMMA before addition of any MPC or SB), as well as minimal biofilms compared to the robust amount on the controls (thickness and biomass were reduced with MPC/SB) [22]. Furthermore, while adding biofilm resistance, the 3D-printed MPC/SB-enhanced PMMA did not have any large losses of flexural strength or elastic modulus, which demonstrates great potential for these materials to increase antimicrobial properties without decreasing the durability or reliability of the products [22].
As already mentioned, one of the major concerns regarding 3D-printed medical devices and the potential for biofilm formation is the surface properties of printed materials [28]. It has become important to test various printing methods to ensure that low surface roughness is maintained, thus reducing bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation [28]. Testing different materials and timepoints after dental events, such as brushing or artificial aging, one study demonstrated that 3D printed resin (methacrylic oligomers and phosphine oxides) exhibited similar roughness to acrylic resin (PMMA), and bisacryl resin (dimethacrylate polymer, Bis-GMA, zirconium particles, silica, and silane) at the initial timepoint and after brushing, but after artificial aging, the printed resin significantly decreased in roughness, while acrylics significantly increased in roughness [28]. The long-term improvement in 3D printed items compared to standard materials is quite promising, especially considering the increased potential of manual and automixing manipulation defects of bubbling and pores that are more commonly observed in the standardly prepared dental resins [28]. The need to reduce pore size in dental implants to best minimize biofilm surface formation has also made nano-engineered dental implants a promising means of development [29]. For instance, electrochemical anodization has allowed for the development of anodized nano-engineered zirconia dental implants with aligned nanopores providing ideal surface topography to prevent biofilms from forming [29]. Important to dental implant placement, this use of nanopore surfaces or nanoscale surface production also increases osseointegration with the natural oral matrixes of the patient, which increases the potential for these techniques in the industry [29]. The successful antimicrobial observations of anodized nanosurfaces against common pathogens, such as Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, and Staphylococcus epidermidis, have been credited to electrostatic and acid-base forces being modified due to the high density of the small pores [11]. In addition to the printing process itself, post-production processing can also be valuable in enhancing the potential of printed materials to resist biofilm formation [30]. In one study, polishing and glazing 3D-printed NextDent UV-curable resin for crowns, bridges, and prosthetics reduced the surface roughness average, which in turn reduced the affinity for bacterial adhesion and colonization [30]. Additionally, glazing alone seemed to be sufficient in reducing surface roughness and biofilm formation, including resistance against streptococci, staphylococci, and Candida, in some polymer substances, such as Mazic Temp 3D-printed materials [30]. The addition of polymerization inhibitors, such as mequinol, to the printed materials, as well as the use of resins that lack long polymerization times, has been shown to further enhance the antimicrobial benefits of 3D-printed glazed or polished materials, as extended polymerization times increase roughness and thus biofilm formation [30].
While some 3D printing focuses on the whole production of implants or devices, some of the value of 3D printing simply lies in the versatility of improving fillers that can be effectively added to the produced dental appliances, such as the printing of intra-oral PMMA appliances with nanodiamonds added as fillers [31]. The use of 3D-printed nanodiamond-enhanced oral appliances not only improved resistance to biofilms of Streptococcus mutans but also improved wear resistance and friction resistance [31]. Even more impressive in dental filler additives is the ability to now fabricate model compounds with 3D-printing technologies using known drugs from the dental field [32]. For instance, customized molds have been made with the antimicrobial tinidazole (TNZ) through thermal pressing of 3D molds to form release and compression molds capable of “on-demand” sustained release of TNZ while maintaining strong mechanical integrity [32]. Since dental caries require proper disinfection when first placed, this new method of 3D-printing custom antimicrobial modes could help provide fillers that are produced with lower cost, greater accessibility and personalization, and increased effectiveness [32]. The promising potential of 3D-printing custom implants in the dental field also expands to the orthodontic and maxillofacial fields, including facial epithesis, with far less strain or complications for patients [33].

3. Use of 3D Printing to Target Biofilms in Reusable Medical Devices

The use of 3D-printed reusable medical devices in areas other than dentistry has also brought about a new industry of medical devices that are now safer to implement without the fear of post-operative infections occurring. Chronic infections due to bacterial biofilm formation on implanted medical devices are a major concern in the field of medicine and the healthcare industry [16]. Various pathogens can cause infections in humans, such as viruses, fungi, and bacteria, but infections from bacteria are the most common type of infection, causing both acute and chronic infections in the population [34]. Bacterial infections are also becoming more untreatable due to the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains [35][36][37][38]. Bacteria exist in two forms: planktonic, which is a free-floating state, and sessile, which adheres to the surface. Both states result in the production of a protective barrier that works as an endogenous defense system, making it difficult for antibiotics to rid the bacteria of infection. This exopolysaccharide matrix barrier, or “slime”, along with the accumulated microbial cell community, is what is now referred to as “biofilm” [39].
Both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria form biofilms on medical devices, but some are more prevalent than others. The most common forms are Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Streptococcus viridans, E. coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [38]. Approximately two-thirds of medical device infections are caused by the Staphylococcus species, which can infect devices such as prosthetic heart valves and catheters, causing potential hospitalizations [40][41][42][43]. According to the National Institute of Health, biofilms account for up to 80% of the total number of microbial infections, such as endocarditis, cystic fibrosis, periodontitis, osteomyelitis, and kidney infections [44][45][46]. Biofilms are particularly challenging to treat due to their difficult diagnosis and lack of biomarkers. Due to the complexity of biofilm communities and their antibiotic-resistant nature, the problem requires new material science to find and implement solutions, particularly biofilm-resistant materials and conventional antibiotics [35][47]. Sustainable innovations in antifouling being explored include targeting bacterial processes, such as quorum sensing, biofilm-related gene expression, secondary messengers, and regulatory RNA, as well as blocking initial adhesions by using green technology, such as silicon oil-infused substrates from plant models [48][49].
A prominent medical device example is the use of hearing aid devices [50]. Approximately 5% of the world’s population suffers from hearing loss, including one-third of the population over the age of 65 years which requires the use of hearing aid devices [50]. As a result of prolonged use of these medical devices, it is common for the ear microbiota to be altered or increased, increasing the risk of fungal and bacterial infections [50]. However, this is not just a limited issue for hearing aids alone. This has been a common occurrence with most internally placed or implanted medical devices—especially implanted medical devices used in joint replacements, catheters, stents, and prosthetics [47].
To date, 3D-printed medical devices with antibiofilm properties are not very prevalent but are being researched and developed for multipurpose use [51]. Common practices for removing biofilm development on hearing aid devices require removing the device for extensive cleaning. This becomes even more complicated when an infection has already taken root. In the case of ear infections, topical antibiotics, and systemic or topical fluoroquinolones are the most effective in administering treatment [50]. Two of the most common fluoroquinolones used for ear infections are ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin [47][50]. With new 3D-printed hearing aids that can act as drug-loaded platforms, patients would avoid discontinuing the use of hearing aids due to infection [52][53].
The drugs chosen for the 3D-printed devices were based on the two most common medications used to treat ear infections. A combination of ciprofloxacin and fluocinolone acetonide were both incorporated into the hearing aid as controlled-release drugs, and this combination was then evaluated against the two most common biofilm formers—Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus—both involved in chronic ear infections [52][53]. Flexible resin and engineering hard resin (ENG) were used to prepare the photoreactive solutions [50]. The results for 3D printed hearing aids proved to be highly efficient and cost-effective when the volume of production was kept low when compared to other manufacturing methods used, such as molding, which requires molds that come at a higher cost due to materials, machinery, and labor [54][55]. The DLP 3D-printed hearing aids preventing or treating biofilm-related infections were successful when prepared using both flexible and ENG hard resins with different drug loads. In vitro drug release studies showed that the hearing aids were able to provide sustained drug release for over seven days for both drugs, successfully demonstrating antibiofilm properties against P. aeruginosa and S. aureus [50].
While resin composite hearing aids with antibiotics are one method of combating antibiofilm resistance, it is not the only angle of approach scientists are taking. Material sciences are also playing a role by researching certain composite materials that show promising results with antibiofilm resistance. Such a material is a 3D-printed composite of polylactic acid (PLA) with the addition of MgB2 particles [56]. The PLA composite, along with MgB2, was shown to have strong antimicrobial activity and is a great candidate for future medical devices due to its range of biomedical applications and its biodegradability and biocompatibility properties [56][57]. Another application of polylactic acid (PLA) is in filament compositions along with modified carbon nanomaterials such as bidimensional graphene (PLA-G), which improves the performance of 3D-printed medical devices. Together, this composition can also be used in the production of personal protective equipment due to its properties, which allow it to be sterilized by near-infrared light exposure within three minutes. This method has even been considered for combating the efforts in the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic [58].
Another approach has been modified 3D-printed polycaprolactone (PCL) scaffolds along with antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). Currently, in Phase I and Phase II human clinical trials, melamine, a chimeric cationic peptide, was immobilized onto the surface of a 3D printed medical-grade polycaprolactone (mPCL) scaffold and showed promising results with a ~78.7% reduction of Staphylococcus aureus compared to the control sample [59][60][61]. Melimine has some interesting properties and might have many applications in the medical implant field. According to multiple studies, it has been shown to reduce bacteria adhesion and biofilm formation when covalently bound to different non-degradable materials, such as silicone, glass, and titanium [62][63][64][65].
A promising new method for orthopedic surgeries involving bone regeneration and defects involves a dual-functional 3D-printed composite scaffold. The quaternized chitosan (HACC)-grafted polylactide-co-glycoside (PLGA)/hydroxyapatite (HA) scaffold (PLGA/HA/HACC) generated by 3D-printing technology exhibited significant antimicrobial and osteoconductive properties in vitro [66][67]. The study evaluated the bone-repairing effects of the 3D-printed scaffolds using infected cortical and cancellous bone defects. The study used 80 female Sprague–Dawley rats and 36 female New Zealand white rabbits. X-ray, micro-CT, microbiological, and histopathological analyses were used to assess the anti-infection and bone-repairing potential of the dual-functional porous scaffolds, and it was observed that the HACC-grafted PLGA/HA scaffolds exhibited significantly enhanced anti-infection and bone regeneration capability in different infected bone defect models [66][67][68]. The scaffold also exhibited enhanced anti-infection and bone regeneration capability in different infected bone defect models, showing promising results in applications for repairing different types of bone defects, even under infection [66][68][69].


  1. Haleem, A.; Javaid, M.; Khan, R.H.; Suman, R. 3D Printing Applications in Bone Tissue Engineering. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2020, 11, S118–S124.
  2. Lee, S.J.; Jo, H.H.; Lim, K.S.; Lim, D.; Lee, S.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, W.D.; Jeong, M.H.; Lim, J.Y.; Kwon, I.K.; et al. Heparin Coating on 3D Printed Poly (l-Lactic Acid) Biodegradable Cardiovascular Stent via Mild Surface Modification Approach for Coronary Artery Implantation. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 378, 122116.
  3. Aimar, A.; Palermo, A.; Innocenti, B. The Role of 3D Printing in Medical Applications: A State of the Art. J. Healthc. Eng. 2019, 2019, e5340616.
  4. De Maio, F.; Rosa, E.; Perini, G.; Augello, A.; Niccolini, B.; Ciaiola, F.; Santarelli, G.; Sciandra, F.; Bozzi, M.; Sanguinetti, M.; et al. 3D-Printed Graphene Polylactic Acid Devices Resistant to SARS-CoV-2: Sunlight-Mediated Sterilization of Additive Manufactured Objects. Carbon 2022, 194, 34–41.
  5. Maleki Dizaj, S.; Eftekhari, A.; Mammadova, S.; Ahmadian, E.; Ardalan, M.; Davaran, S.; Nasibova, A.; Khalilov, R.; Valiyeva, M.; Mehraliyeva, S.; et al. Nanomaterials for Chronic Kidney Disease Detection. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9656.
  6. Ahmadov, I.S.; Bandaliyeva, A.A.; Nasibova, A.N.; Hasanova, F.V.; Khalilov, R.I. The Synthesis of the Silver Nanodrugs in the Medicinal Plant Baikal Skullcap (Scutellaria baicalensis georgi) and Their Antioxidant, Antibacterial Activity. Adv. Biol. Earth Sci. 2020, 5, 103–118.
  7. Nasibova, A. Generation of nanoparticles in biological systems and their application prospects. Adv. Biol. Earth Sci. 2023, 8, 140–146.
  8. Sandler, N.; Salmela, I.; Fallarero, A.; Rosling, A.; Khajeheian, M.; Kolakovic, R.; Genina, N.; Nyman, J.; Vuorela, P. Towards Fabrication of 3D Printed Medical Devices to Prevent Biofilm Formation. Int. J. Pharm. 2014, 459, 62–64.
  9. Esposito, M.M.; Turku, S. The Use of Natural Methods to Control Foodborne Biofilms. Pathogens 2023, 12, 45.
  10. Roy, S.; Chowdhury, G.; Mukhopadhyay, A.K.; Dutta, S.; Basu, S. Convergence of Biofilm Formation and Antibiotic Resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii Infection. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 793615.
  11. Feng, G.; Cheng, Y.; Wang, S.-Y.; Borca-Tasciuc, D.A.; Worobo, R.W.; Moraru, C.I. Bacterial Attachment and Biofilm Formation on Surfaces Are Reduced by Small-Diameter Nanoscale Pores: How Small Is Small Enough? NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2015, 1, 15022.
  12. Smith, K.; Hunter, I.S. Efficacy of Common Hospital Biocides with Biofilms of Multi-Drug Resistant Clinical Isolates. J. Med. Microbiol. 2008, 57, 966–973.
  13. Stewart, P.S.; William Costerton, J. Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria in Biofilms. Lancet 2001, 358, 135–138.
  14. Johnson, J.A. Nosocomial Infections. Vet. Clin. Small Anim. Pract. 2002, 32, 1101–1126.
  15. Devanga Ragupathi, N.K.; Veeraraghavan, B.; Karunakaran, E.; Monk, P.N. Editorial: Biofilm-Mediated Nosocomial Infections and Its Association with Antimicrobial Resistance: Detection, Prevention, and Management. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 987011.
  16. Stewart, P.S.; Bjarnsholt, T. Risk Factors for Chronic Biofilm-Related Infection Associated with Implanted Medical Devices. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 1034–1038.
  17. Donlan, R.M.; Murga, R.; Bell, M.; Toscano, C.M.; Carr, J.H.; Novicki, T.J.; Zuckerman, C.; Corey, L.C.; Miller, J.M. Protocol for Detection of Biofilms on Needleless Connectors Attached to Central Venous Catheters. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001, 39, 750–753.
  18. Patiniott, P.; Jacombs, A.; Kaul, L.; Hu, H.; Warner, M.; Klosterhalfen, B.; Karatassas, A.; Maddern, G.; Richter, K. Are Late Hernia Mesh Complications Linked to Staphylococci Biofilms? Hernia 2022, 26, 1293–1299.
  19. Perkowski, K.; Baltaza, W.; Conn, D.B.; Marczyńska-Stolarek, M.; Chomicz, L. Examination of Oral Biofilm Microbiota in Patients Using Fixed Orthodontic Appliances in Order to Prevent Risk Factors for Health Complications. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2019, 26, 231–235.
  20. Moore, K.; Gupta, N.; Gupta, T.T.; Patel, K.; Brooks, J.R.; Sullivan, A.; Litsky, A.S.; Stoodley, P. Mapping Bacterial Biofilm on Features of Orthopedic Implants In Vitro. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 586.
  21. Liu, X.; Cao, B.; Yang, L.; Gu, J.-D. Biofilm Control by Interfering with C-Di-GMP Metabolism and Signaling. Biotechnol. Adv. 2022, 56, 107915.
  22. Kwon, J.-S.; Kim, J.-Y.; Mangal, U.; Seo, J.-Y.; Lee, M.-J.; Jin, J.; Yu, J.-H.; Choi, S.-H. Durable Oral Biofilm Resistance of 3D-Printed Dental Base Polymers Containing Zwitterionic Materials. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 417.
  23. Simoneti, D.M.; Pereira-Cenci, T.; dos Santos, M.B.F. Comparison of Material Properties and Biofilm Formation in Interim Single Crowns Obtained by 3D Printing and Conventional Methods. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 127, 168–172.
  24. Saeed, F.; Muhammad, N.; Khan, A.S.; Sharif, F.; Rahim, A.; Ahmad, P.; Irfan, M. Prosthodontics Dental Materials: From Conventional to Unconventional. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2020, 106, 110167.
  25. Mazurek-Popczyk, J.; Palka, L.; Arkusz, K.; Dalewski, B.; Baldy-Chudzik, K. Personalized, 3D- Printed Fracture Fixation Plates versus Commonly Used Orthopedic Implant Materials- Biomaterials Characteristics and Bacterial Biofilm Formation. Injury 2022, 53, 938–946.
  26. Reichhardt, C.; Jacobs, H.M.; Matwichuk, M.; Wong, C.; Wozniak, D.J.; Parsek, M.R. The Versatile Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Matrix Protein CdrA Promotes Aggregation through Different Extracellular Exopolysaccharide Interactions. J. Bacteriol. 2020, 202, e00216-20.
  27. Flemming, H.-C.; van Hullebusch, E.D.; Neu, T.R.; Nielsen, P.H.; Seviour, T.; Stoodley, P.; Wingender, J.; Wuertz, S. The Biofilm Matrix: Multitasking in a Shared Space. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2023, 21, 70–86.
  28. Rizzante, F.; Bueno, T.; Guimarães, G.; Moura, G.; Teich, S.; Furuse, A.; Mendonça, G. Comparative Physical and Mechanical Properties of a 3D Printed Temporary Crown and Bridge Restorative Material. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2023, 15, e464–e469.
  29. Chopra, D.; Jayasree, A.; Guo, T.; Gulati, K.; Ivanovski, S. Random, Aligned and Grassy: Bioactivity and Biofilm Analysis of Zirconia Nanostructures as Dental Implant Modification. Compos. Part B Eng. 2023, 259, 110725.
  30. Mazurek-Popczyk, J.; Nowicki, A.; Arkusz, K.; Pałka, Ł.; Zimoch-Korzycka, A.; Baldy-Chudzik, K. Evaluation of Biofilm Formation on Acrylic Resins Used to Fabricate Dental Temporary Restorations with the Use of 3D Printing Technology. BMC Oral Health 2022, 22, 442.
  31. Mangal, U.; Min, Y.J.; Seo, J.-Y.; Kim, D.-E.; Cha, J.-Y.; Lee, K.-J.; Kwon, J.-S.; Choi, S.-H. Changes in Tribological and Antibacterial Properties of Poly(Methyl Methacrylate)-Based 3D-Printed Intra-Oral Appliances by Incorporating Nanodiamonds. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2020, 110, 103992.
  32. Yang, Y.; Li, H.; Xu, Y.; Dong, Y.; Shan, W.; Shen, J. Fabrication and Evaluation of Dental Fillers Using Customized Molds via 3D Printing Technology. Int. J. Pharm. 2019, 562, 66–75.
  33. Bachelet, J.T.; Jouan, R.; Prade, V.; Francisco, C.; Jaby, P.; Gleizal, A. Place of 3D Printing in Facial Epithesis. J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 118, 224–227.
  34. Bereket, W.; Hemalatha, K.; Getenet, B.; Wondwossen, T.; Solomon, A.; Zeynudin, A.; Kannan, S. Update on Bacterial Nosocomial Infections. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2012, 16, 1039–1044.
  35. Paharik, A.E.; Horswill, A.R. The Staphylococcal Biofilm: Adhesins, Regulation, and Host Response. In Virulence Mechanisms of Bacterial Pathogens; Kudva, I.T., Cornick, N.A., Plummer, P.J., Zhang, Q., Nicholson, T.L., Bannantine, J.P., Bellaire, B.H., Eds.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 529–566. ISBN 978-1-68367-071-1.
  36. Zaborowska, M.; Tillander, J.; Brånemark, R.; Hagberg, L.; Thomsen, P.; Trobos, M. Biofilm Formation and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Staphylococci and Enterococci from Osteomyelitis Associated with Percutaneous Orthopaedic Implants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2017, 105, 2630–2640.
  37. Koseki, H.; Yonekura, A.; Shida, T.; Yoda, I.; Horiuchi, H.; Morinaga, Y.; Yanagihara, K.; Sakoda, H.; Osaki, M.; Tomita, M. Early Staphylococcal Biofilm Formation on Solid Orthopaedic Implant Materials: In Vitro Study. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e107588.
  38. Chen, M.; Yu, Q.; Sun, H. Novel Strategies for the Prevention and Treatment of Biofilm Related Infections. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 18488–18501.
  39. Bjarnsholt, T. Introduction to Biofilms. In Biofilm Infections; Bjarnsholt, T., Jensen, P.Ø., Moser, C., Høiby, N., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 1–9. ISBN 978-1-4419-6083-2.
  40. Ribeiro, M.; Monteiro, F.J.; Ferraz, M.P. Infection of Orthopedic Implants with Emphasis on Bacterial Adhesion Process and Techniques Used in Studying Bacterial-Material Interactions. Biomatter 2012, 2, 176–194.
  41. Darouiche, R.O. Treatment of Infections Associated with Surgical Implants. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 350, 1422–1429.
  42. Oliveira, W.F.; Silva, P.M.S.; Silva, R.C.S.; Silva, G.M.M.; Machado, G.; Coelho, L.C.B.B.; Correia, M.T.S. Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis Infections on Implants. J. Hosp. Infect. 2018, 98, 111–117.
  43. Zheng, Y.; He, L.; Asiamah, T.K.; Otto, M. Colonization of Medical Devices by Staphylococci: Colonization of Medical Devices by Staphylococci. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 20, 3141–3153.
  44. Arciola, C.R.; Campoccia, D.; Montanaro, L. Implant Infections: Adhesion, Biofilm Formation and Immune Evasion. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2018, 16, 397–409.
  45. Kiedrowski, M.R.; Horswill, A.R. New Approaches for Treating Staphylococcal Biofilm Infections: Treatments for Staphylococcal Biofilms. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2011, 1241, 104–121.
  46. Chao, Y.; Marks, L.R.; Pettigrew, M.M.; Hakansson, A.P. Streptococcus pneumoniae Biofilm Formation and Dispersion during Colonization and Disease. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2015, 4, 194.
  47. He, Y.; Luckett, J.; Begines, B.; Dubern, J.-F.; Hook, A.L.; Prina, E.; Rose, F.R.A.J.; Tuck, C.J.; Hague, R.J.M.; Irvine, D.J.; et al. Ink-Jet 3D Printing as a Strategy for Developing Bespoke Non-Eluting Biofilm Resistant Medical Devices. Biomaterials 2022, 281, 121350.
  48. Rabin, N.; Zheng, Y.; Opoku-Temeng, C.; Du, Y.; Bonsu, E.; Sintim, H.O. Biofilm Formation Mechanisms and Targets for Developing Antibiofilm Agents. Future Med. Chem. 2015, 7, 493–512.
  49. Shimura, R.; Abe, H.; Yabu, H.; Chien, M.-F.; Inoue, C. Biomimetic Antibiofouling Oil Infused Honeycomb Films Fabricated Using Breath Figures. Polym. J. 2021, 53, 713–717.
  50. Vivero-Lopez, M.; Xu, X.; Muras, A.; Otero, A.; Concheiro, A.; Gaisford, S.; Basit, A.W.; Alvarez-Lorenzo, C.; Goyanes, A. Anti-Biofilm Multi Drug-Loaded 3D Printed Hearing Aids. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2021, 119, 111606.
  51. Xu, X.; Awad, A.; Robles-Martinez, P.; Gaisford, S.; Goyanes, A.; Basit, A.W. Vat Photopolymerization 3D Printing for Advanced Drug Delivery and Medical Device Applications. J. Control. Release 2021, 329, 743–757.
  52. Kostakioti, M.; Hadjifrangiskou, M.; Hultgren, S.J. Bacterial Biofilms: Development, Dispersal, and Therapeutic Strategies in the Dawn of the Postantibiotic Era. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2013, 3, a010306.
  53. Parrish, J.M.; Soni, M.; Mittal, R. Subversion of Host Immune Responses by Otopathogens during Otitis Media. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2019, 106, 943–956.
  54. Robles-Martinez, P.; Xu, X.; Trenfield, S.J.; Awad, A.; Goyanes, A.; Telford, R.; Basit, A.W.; Gaisford, S. 3D Printing of a Multi-Layered Polypill Containing Six Drugs Using a Novel Stereolithographic Method. Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 274.
  55. Xu, X.; Robles-Martinez, P.; Madla, C.M.; Joubert, F.; Goyanes, A.; Basit, A.W.; Gaisford, S. Stereolithography (SLA) 3D Printing of an Antihypertensive Polyprintlet: Case Study of an Unexpected Photopolymer-Drug Reaction. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 33, 101071.
  56. Badica, P.; Batalu, N.D.; Chifiriuc, M.C.; Burdusel, M.; Grigoroscuta, M.A.; Aldica, G.V.; Pasuk, I.; Kuncser, A.; Popa, M.; Agostino, A.; et al. Sintered and 3D-Printed Bulks of MgB2-Based Materials with Antimicrobial Properties. Molecules 2021, 26, 6045.
  57. Nielsen, F.H. Magnesium Deficiency and Increased Inflammation: Current Perspectives. J. Inflamm. Res. 2018, 11, 25–34.
  58. Dickson, A.N.; Abourayana, H.M.; Dowling, D.P. 3D Printing of Fibre-Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites Using Fused Filament Fabrication—A Review. Polymers 2020, 12, 2188.
  59. Cometta, S.; Jones, R.T.; Juárez-Saldivar, A.; Donose, B.C.; Yasir, M.; Bock, N.; Dargaville, T.R.; Bertling, K.; Brünig, M.; Rakić, A.D.; et al. Melimine-Modified 3D-Printed Polycaprolactone Scaffolds for the Prevention of Biofilm-Related Biomaterial Infections. ACS Nano 2022, 16, 16497–16512.
  60. Dutta, D.; Ozkan, J.; Willcox, M.D.P. Biocompatibility of Antimicrobial Melimine Lenses: Rabbit and Human Studies. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2014, 91, 570–581.
  61. Su, Y.; Wang, H.; Mishra, B.; Lakshmaiah Narayana, J.; Jiang, J.; Reilly, D.A.; Hollins, R.R.; Carlson, M.A.; Wang, G.; Xie, J. Nanofiber Dressings Topically Delivering Molecularly Engineered Human Cathelicidin Peptides for the Treatment of Biofilms in Chronic Wounds. Mol. Pharm. 2019, 16, 2011–2020.
  62. Dutta, D.; Cole, N.; Kumar, N.; Willcox, M.D.P. Broad Spectrum Antimicrobial Activity of Melimine Covalently Bound to Contact Lenses. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013, 54, 175.
  63. Willcox, M.D.P.; Hume, E.B.H.; Aliwarga, Y.; Kumar, N.; Cole, N. A Novel Cationic-Peptide Coating for the Prevention of Microbial Colonization on Contact Lenses. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 105, 1817–1825.
  64. Rasul, R.; Cole, N.; Balasubramanian, D.; Chen, R.; Kumar, N.; Willcox, M.D.P. Interaction of the Antimicrobial Peptide Melimine with Bacterial Membranes. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2010, 35, 566–572.
  65. Yasir, M.; Dutta, D.; Hossain, K.R.; Chen, R.; Ho, K.K.K.; Kuppusamy, R.; Clarke, R.J.; Kumar, N.; Willcox, M.D.P. Mechanism of Action of Surface Immobilized Antimicrobial Peptides Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 3053.
  66. Yang, Y.; Chu, L.; Yang, S.; Zhang, H.; Qin, L.; Guillaume, O.; Eglin, D.; Richards, R.G.; Tang, T. Dual-Functional 3D-Printed Composite Scaffold for Inhibiting Bacterial Infection and Promoting Bone Regeneration in Infected Bone Defect Models. Acta Biomater. 2018, 79, 265–275.
  67. Yang, Y.; Yang, S.; Wang, Y.; Yu, Z.; Ao, H.; Zhang, H.; Qin, L.; Guillaume, O.; Eglin, D.; Richards, R.G.; et al. Anti-Infective Efficacy, Cytocompatibility and Biocompatibility of a 3D-Printed Osteoconductive Composite Scaffold Functionalized with Quaternized Chitosan. Acta Biomater. 2016, 46, 112–128.
  68. Inzana, J.A.; Schwarz, E.M.; Kates, S.L.; Awad, H.A. Biomaterials Approaches to Treating Implant-Associated Osteomyelitis. Biomaterials 2016, 81, 58–71.
  69. Kang, H.-W.; Lee, S.J.; Ko, I.K.; Kengla, C.; Yoo, J.J.; Atala, A. A 3D Bioprinting System to Produce Human-Scale Tissue Constructs with Structural Integrity. Nat. Biotechnol. 2016, 34, 312–319.
Subjects: Surgery
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : , ,
View Times: 265
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 08 Oct 2023