Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The use of biomaterials in orthopaedics for joint replacement, fracture healing and bone regeneration is a rapidly expanding field. Infection of these biomaterials is a major healthcare burden, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, the cost to healthcare systems is increasing dramatically. With advances in implant design and production, research has predominately focussed on osseointegration; however, modification of implant material, surface topography and chemistry can also provide antibacterial activity. With the increasing burden of infection, it is vitally important that we consider the bacterial interaction with the biomaterial and the host when designing and manufacturing future implants. During this review, we will elucidate the interaction between patient, biomaterial surface and bacteria. We aim to review current and developing surface modifications with a view towards antibacterial orthopaedic implants for clinical applications.

Keywords

Biomaterials titanium orthopaedic implants topography biofilms

Introduction

Biomaterials are biological or synthetic substances that are designed to perform, enhance or replace the normal function of different tissues including skin, vasculature, bone, cartilage or tendon by interacting with the biological system. Ideal biomaterial properties vary depending on the tissue being replaced and required function. Ideal biomaterials are highly biocompatible, often with specific functionalisation usually serving as a matrix for cell adhesion that regulates cell processes such as proliferation, migration and matrix synthesis. The ideal biomaterial in orthopaedics would be highly biocompatible, inexpensive and straightforward to manufacture, reproducing the function of the replaced tissue such as stimulating the production of new bone. A great deal of research has been dedicated to developing ideal biomaterials for orthopaedics particularly focussed on osseointegration.

However, any surgical intervention, particularly with implantation of biomaterials, runs the risk of biomaterial-associated infection (BAI) or periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). Bacteria adhere to biomaterial surfaces, where they produce biofilms enhancing their colonisation, preventing phagocytosis and evading the immune response, as well as becoming more resistant to systemic antibiotics.^1–4 BAI cause significant patient morbidity and mortality, contributing to implant failure and loosening with an average failure rate of 2%–5%.^5–7 Patients often require extensive further surgical intervention and long-term antibiotic therapy. The average economic cost of each patient with PJI is £25,000.⁸ An ideal biomaterial would also provide appropriate antibacterial action.

Biomaterial function differs depending upon the indication, and subsequently the infecting organisms may vary. In trauma, for example, skin commensals such as Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (S. epidermidis) are the most common pathogens, however, contamination from the environment at the time of injury can introduce a wide spectrum of bacteria to the fracture and soft tissues.⁹ Biomaterials used in fracture fixation are largely designed to promote fracture union without osseointegrating themselves. In elective orthopaedics, PJI affects approximately 1% of primary arthroplasties, often leading to poor outcome.^10,11 In PJI, the most common bacteria are again S. epidermidis and S. aureus, but other species including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Gram-negative organisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) may be seen.^12–15 Due to the rise in rates of arthroplasty and trend towards younger patients with higher expectations, uncemented implants have gained popularity.¹⁶ These implants rely upon osseointegration with the host bone to create a secure long-term fixation at the bone–material interface, which must be maintained through continuous cycles of bone remodelling. In order to optimise implant osseointegration, research has been directed at developing implant surfaces that encourage new bone formation without significant consideration towards bacterial response.

Treatment of PJI requires a multimodal treatment strategy. Surgery is usually necessary to reduce the localised bacterial infection and remove the biofilm-coated implants, along with long-term systemic antibiotic drug administration.^17,18 Local antibiotic treatment strategies such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) antibiotic beads and high-dose antibiotic cement spacers show good clinical results;^19,20 however, overdose of local and systemic antibiotics might negatively affect osteogenesis and are not without complications.^21,22 Use of surface-modified orthopaedic implants is another option, which may provide clinical advantage. For example, reducing the initial risk of bacterial infection from early or late haematogenous spread, reducing local and systemic antibiotic toxicity effects and improving clearance of infection and subsequent osseointegration following established infection.

Understanding the interaction between host, biomaterial and microorganism is very important for the development of antibacterial orthopaedic implants for clinical applications. This review highlights the relationship between host cells, implant materials and bacteria from an osteoimmunological aspect. We also focus on current surface fabrication techniques of Ti and its alloys for the development of antibacterial surface modifications and their potential clinical applications.

Interaction between host, material and bacteria

The host reacts to microorganisms via innate and acquired immune responses, though some bacteria can evade this by producing a biofilm or by becoming internalised into the osteoblast cells (Figure 1). Planktonic state bacteria are initially attracted to a material surface by different forces, for example, van der Waals or gravitational forces. Once the bacteria have adhered to the surface, they form stronger adhesion using pili. These bacteria then form colonies on the implant surface and secrete extracellular matrix rich in polysaccharides and proteins to form a biofilm layer, hence protecting themselves from the immune system. Bacteria and biofilm formation can reduce osteoblast viability and disturb osteoblast–osteoclast interaction resulting in bone resorption.^13,28 A better understanding of the host cellular and bacteria–material surface interactions will help to improve treatment of PJI as well as improve material design. The ideal biomaterial will reduce bacterial colony formation (by anti-adhesive or bactericidal effect), promote osteogenic induction and maintain long-term implant osseointegration.

Figure 1.

Bacteria–material–host interaction. (a) Bacteria adhere on material surface and form a biofilm enhancing their proliferation and protecting themselves from immune response and antibiotic drugs. (b) Bacteria interact with host cells such as osteoblasts. Osteoblasts non-professionally internalise bacteria.²³ This mechanism helps bacteria evade the immune system.²⁴ Bacteria induce osteoblast apoptosis by toxin production.^25,26 Infected osteoblasts also induce tumour necrosis factor–related apoptosis-induced ligand (TRAIL) via caspase-8.²⁷ (c) Immune cells, both innate and adaptive, attack the planktonic bacteria to reduce bacterial numbers. Infected osteoblasts produce cytokines to activate immune response. (d) Infected osteoblasts produce RANKL, CXCL2 and CCL3 which enhance osteoclastogenesis resulting in bone resorption.²⁸,²⁹

Osteoimmunology: how bone cells respond to bacteria

Once bacterial pathogens are introduced into the host via direct surgical site or haematogenous spread, bacteria then present pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS), lipoprotein, lipoteichoic acid (LTA) or peptidoglycans.^30–32 Bacterial detection results in activation of the complement cascade and attracts inflammatory cells to the infected site. Phagocytic innate immune cells, such as macrophage and neutrophils engulf and kill planktonic bacteria directly. They can recognise bacterial PAMPs via toll-like receptors (TLR), a family of cell surface pattern recognition receptors (PRRs). Ligation of TLRs activates intracellular nuclear factor kappa B (NFκB) signalling cascades, which results in the increased production and release of soluble chemoattractants (cytokines and chemokines). These recruit immune cells to the site of infection.³² Professional antigen presenting cells such as dendritic cells (DCs) link the host innate and adaptive immune responses, and by activating both cytotoxic CD8⁺T-lymphocytes and B lymphocytes produce antibodies against bacteria.³³ Dysregulation of this process can result in an attenuated immune response, driving sustained chronic infection.

Osteoblasts respond to planktonic bacteria by several mechanisms.³⁴ Initially, osteoblasts can internalise bacteria into vesicles; however, some bacteria have adapted to remain quiescent or to secrete toxins such as phenol-soluble modulins (PSMs) to escape internalisation and induce osteoblast necrosis and apoptosis. These bacteria will then continue to infect surrounding cells. Infected osteoblasts also activate innate and adaptive immune cells by producing a plethora of cytokines and chemokines (such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), CXCL2, CXCL8, CXCL10, CCL2, CCL3 and CCL5).^33,35 Infected osteoblasts also produce factors such as RANKL, granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), macrophage colony stimulating factor (M-CSF) and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) to enhance osteoclastogenesis leading to bone resorption.^33,36

Osteoclasts originate from haematopoietic stem cells and differentiate from the same precursors as macrophages and dendritic cells.³⁴ Li et al.³⁷ demonstrated that mature osteoclasts can function as antigen-presenting cells and can activate CD4 ⁺ and CD8 ⁺ T cells. Osteoclast precursors are attracted to sites of infection by sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P).³⁸ During the host response to a bacterial infection, macrophages become activated by the inflammatory environment and produce pro-inflammatory cytokines, which further promote osteoclastogenesis.³⁹

Understanding the immunological response to common microorganisms is necessary for treatment of osteomyelitis and PJI. S. aureus, for example, binds to bone extracellular matrix using adhesion proteins termed microbial surface components recognising adhesive matrix molecules (MSCRAMMs). These include collagen-binding adhesin (Cna, binding to collagen), fibronectin-binding protein (FnBP; binding to fibronectin),^40,41 bone sialoprotein binding protein (Bbp; binding to bone sialoprotein) and major histocompatibility complex class II (MHC class II; binding to osteopontin).⁴²

FnbA and B as well as Cna play important roles in bacterial binding to implants.⁴³ Testoni et al.⁴⁴ suggested Cna and Bbp synergised to drive S. aureus-osteoblast adhesion. Bacterial fibronectin-binding proteins (FnBPs) binding to osteoblast α₁β₅ integrins trigger the non-professional phagocytic process which internalises bacteria.⁴⁵ After S. aureus binds to the bone extracellular matrix, osteoblasts engulf S. aureus cells, a process dependent upon cytoskeletal proteins, such as actin.²³ This then supports S. aureus evading the immune system and promotes bacterial spreading.

Bacterial–material interaction: underlying theories, interaction phases and biofilm formation

There are three main influences on bacterial interaction with material surfaces, material features, bacterial features and the environment (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The four stages of biofilm development. (a) Initial bacterial attachment. (b) Bacteria start to produce multiple layers through cell aggregation and accumulation. (c) Biofilm development and matrix elaboration. (d) Bacteria start a new cycle of biofilm formation in different location.

Bacterial features

Different bacterial species have different adherent behaviour to biomaterial surfaces due to their physicochemical characteristics and preferred environment.^46,47

Bacterial hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity

In general, bacterial species with hydrophobic properties prefer binding to hydrophobic surfaces and vice versa. However, the material surface hydrophobicity plays a more important role in bacterial adhesion than the intrinsic bacterial surface hydrophobicity.⁴⁶ Bacterial hydrophobicity changes according to bacterial age, surface structure and medium growth. Possible reasons behind this include increased exopolysaccharide production with higher salt concentrations and in aged cells and lower nutrients in the culture media. These factors all lead to a drop in hydrophobicity.⁴⁸

Bacterial surface charge

The relationship between bacterial surface charge properties and bacterial adhesion are not clearly understood. However, there is some evidence that bacterial charge is affected by growth medium, environmental pH, the buffer ionic strength, bacterial age and surface structure. Moreover, bacteria in aqueous solutions are usually negatively charged.^46,47 Hence, the surface charge for both bacterial and biomaterial should be considered in predicting bacterial adhesion on material surfaces.⁴⁹

There are two phases of the bacterial–material interaction. Phase I: this is the initial, instantaneous and reversible physical phase. Phase II: this is the time-dependent and irreversible molecular and cellular phase.⁴⁷ Biomaterial surface topography such as pattern and roughness can affect the bacterial adhesion.⁵⁰

Normally, bacteria prefer to grow on available surfaces rather than in the surrounding aqueous phase.⁵¹ During phase I, bacterial adhesion starts with surface attraction, followed by cell adsorption and attachment.⁵² The bacterial movement occurs by physical interactions such as Brownian motion, van der Waals and gravitational forces; the surface electrostatic charge and hydrophobic interactions.^25,29 In addition, physical interactions are classified into long- and short-range interactions. In long-range interactions, the distance between cells and surfaces is not specific (>50 nm). While in short-range interactions the cells have a close contact (< 5 nm) with the surface. Once the bacteria have attached to the surface (long-range interactions), the initial part of adhesion occurs (short-range interactions), allowing phase II to begin.^47,53

There are three theories described to date that determine the interaction between bacterial cells and surfaces. First, the Derjaguin–Landau–Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory describes the net interaction between cells and surfaces when the particle adhesion is affected by long-range interactions. These include Lifshitz-van der Waals interactions and overlapping electric double-layer interactions.⁵⁴ This explains the reason why some colloidal systems agglomerate while others do not. Second, the thermodynamic theory⁵⁵ describes bacterial attachment to the surfaces with different attractive and repulsive interactions like van der Waals, electrostatic or dipole. Generally, the thermodynamic theory works as a closed system where the organism converts the substrate to energy without any energy from the outside.⁵⁶ Finally, a combination of the available theories termed the extended DLVO theory was developed. This includes the hydrophobic/ hydrophilic interactions.^57,58

In the second phase (adhesion phase), molecular-specific reactions occur between structures on bacterial surfaces with the substratum surfaces. Specific polymeric structures in bacteria such as capsules, fimbriae or pili serve as bridges between the cell and the surface.^53,59,60 Clumping factors, proteins and teichoic acid are factors that may play a role in highly viscous masses.⁴⁶ Following phase II, bacteria may then begin to form biofilms on the material surface.

Biofilm formation on implants

Biofilm formation is an advantageous process for bacteria. The majority of the world’s bacterial populations are found in the form of a biofilm at various stages of development.⁶¹ A biofilm is a structured group of bacteria that cover themselves in an exopolysaccharide matrix, which results in firm adhesion on the implant. Inside biofilms, intercellular bacterial communication regulates gene expression and adaptation including phenotypic variation and survival during nutrient starvation.^62,63 In addition, the bacteria are protected from antibiotics and dynamic environments.^64,65 There are four steps for biofilm formation (Figure 3). Step 1: The bacteria initially attach on the substrate. Step 2: Accumulation of multiple cell layers through cell aggregation and accumulation. Step 3: matrix elaboration and biofilm development. Step 4: Bacterial release to start a new cycle of biofilm formation in a proximal location.^43,66,67 Following biofilm development, bacteria work in groups rather than as individual cells in a process called ‘quorum sensing’. A number of methods have been developed to prevent biofilm formation, including inhibition of quorum sensing, anti-adhesion drugs and macromolecules.^43,68–72 However, we will focus on material surface adaptations.

Figure 3.

Three main features affect bacterial–material interaction. (a) Material features such as morphology and physicochemical cues. (b) Bacterial features including surface charge and hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity. (c) Environments such as temperature, pH, bacterial concentration and contact time as well as other factors such as serum and protein.

Material features

There are many factors influencing bacteria adherence to biomaterials surfaces including surface morphology and roughness, surface chemical composition and surface hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity.

Surface morphology and roughness

It has become clear that the micro/nano-topography of a biomaterial plays an important role in bacterial adhesion.^73–79 This concept originates from observations made on the unique features of Cicada (Psaltoda claripennis) wings, which have nanoscale pillar patterns protecting the insect from bacterial infection.⁸⁰ Bacteria prefer rough or grooved surfaces that increase the contact area and enhance the binding ability when compared to flat surfaces.^81,82 Moreover, use of polymer coatings on material surfaces reduces the biofilm deposition and bacterial adhesion.⁸² The coating reduces the size of micro- or nano-grooves in the material, which become too small for the bacterium to fit, thus shrinking the potential contact area between the bacterium and binding sites.⁸³

Various studies have published the effects of topographical modifications on bacterial adhesion and survival. Tsimbouri et al.⁸⁴ showed that TiO₂ nanowires produced by hydrothermal oxidation reduce the P. aeruginosa growth in the early stage of bacterial adhesion compared with polished Titanium (Ti). Truong et al.⁸⁵ reported that eukaryotic and prokaryotic cell attachment on Ti surfaces can be controlled by modifying the surface topography and morphology into micro- or nano-structures. Teughels et al.⁸⁶ reported that high surface roughness assisted biofilm formation on implants. Pier-Francesco et al.⁸⁷ found that the P. gingivalis adhesion to titanium was inhibited at surface roughness levels below R_a 350 nm, a roughness level generally encountered for implant collars/abutments. Several authors have demonstrated that TiO₂ photo-activation leads to loss of viability for five different pathogens (Escherichia coli (E. coli), P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, Enterococcus hirae (E. hirae) and Bacteroides fragilis (B. fragilis)).^88–92 According to Verdier et al.,⁹³ TiO₂ under ultraviolet (UV) irradiation showed an antibacterial activity for the E. coli.

Surface chemical/physical composition

Surface chemistry can play a role in bacterial adhesion and proliferation. Materials with different functional groups change bacterial adhesion depending on material hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity and charge state.^46,47 Water contact angle (WCA) measurements have been used to reveal the hydrophobic (high) or hydrophilic (low) nature of material surfaces. Metals tend to have a high surface energy, negative charge and hydrophilic features as confirmed by WCA, whereas polymers have low surface energy, less charge and hydrophobic features.⁴⁷ In addition, the hydrophilicity of materials may change with time, for example, Ti(OH)₄ hydrophilicity may decline overtime due to air oxidation or carbon contamination and become TiO₂ (hydrophobic).^94–96 Thus, it is important to monitor the chemical changes in the surface features over time to determine the bacteria survival time.^97,98

The environment

General environment factors such as temperature, time length exposure, chemical treatment, pH, antibiotic presence and bacterial concentration may play a role in bacterial adhesion.^46,47,99 Optimum bacterial temperature allows bacterial enzyme activity, bacterial growth and biofilm formation.^99,100 Temperature changes may also affect the physical properties, for example, at 35°C bacteria have a single flagellum, while at 21°C they have 2–3 flagella and at 10°C they have multiple flagella. At lower temperatures, the ability of biofilm adhesion increases if properties of polysaccharides are uniform.¹⁰¹ This suggests that by raising the temperature, adhesion will reduce between the bacteria and the substrate. However, despite increasing temperature to 80°C–90°C, biofilm removal is not improved due to ‘baking effects’.¹⁰²

Changing pH and environmental chemical concentrations such as NaCl, HCl and KCl affect bacterial growth.^99,103–105 Bacteria have the ability to respond to changes in internal or external pH by adjusting their activity and protein synthesis.¹⁰⁶ This allows the bacteria to adapt to small changes in their environment.^99,107 Some bacteria have the ability to modify their metabolism to lower growth rate under specific drug pressures until they find favourable conditions for multiplication.¹⁰⁸ This can be favourable for bacteria as some antibiotics act to decrease bacterial adhesion.^109,110

Other factors: serum or tissue proteins

Serum or tissue proteins such as fibronectin (FN), fibrinogen (Fg) and albumin may promote or inhibit bacterial biofilm accumulation on biomaterial surfaces.^46,47

Fibronectin is an extracellular glycoprotein that is found in soluble and insoluble forms in extracellular fluids and connective tissues.^111–113 FN plays various roles in cellular activities such as adhesive interactions between cell surface integrin receptors by organising into a fibrillar network;¹¹⁴ development;¹¹⁵ wound healing; haemostasis and tissue repair.¹¹⁶ Moreover, interactions between growth factors and FN control growth factor presentation and their activity.¹¹⁷

Fibrinogen (Fg) is a protein that plays a role in blood coagulation, platelet adhesion and aggregation and hemostatic processes.^118,119

Titanium surface material modification

A wide variety of different materials are used as biomaterials; however, we will specifically focus on the surface modification of titanium in this review. Ti and its alloys (Ti-6Al-4V, Ti-5Al-2·5Fe and Ti-6Al-7Nb) are one of the most widely used materials in orthopaedics, both in trauma and elective practice. Ti has good corrosion resistance, high strength, low weight and modulus of elasticity much closer to that of bone than other metals. The benefit of using Ti-based alloys is their non-reactivity due to auto-passivation. However, the bioinert nature of Ti also means that as a flat surface, it shows no osteoinduction. Titanium is a very adaptable material, and many techniques have been used to modify surface roughness and create interconnecting porous architecture in order to promote osseointegration. Common microscale surface modification techniques for improved osseointegration can be divided into surface roughening (such as blasting, plasma spray, meshing, etching and anodisation) and surface coating (such as plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite (HA) coating). Currently marketed implants include porous coating (e.g. Zimmer, CSTi); plasma-sprayed HA coating (e.g. DePuy Synthes, PureFix; Stryker); HA coated on porous plasma spray titanium alloy (BoneMaster; Biomet) and Sintered–titanium bead with plasma-sprayed HA coat (ROUGHCOAT; Smith & Nephew). Clinical trials have reported good clinical outcomes and prosthetic longevity with cementless fixation.^50,120 However, the effect of macro- to microscale surface roughness on bone ingrowth remains inconclusive.^121,122 Many of these techniques create bone on-growth rather than ingrowth and suffer from weak bonding between the surface layer and the underlying implant, with shearing and failure of the surface.¹²³ Furthermore, the effect of these surface modifications on bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation has been poorly studied.

The design of prostheses with surfaces that enhance osseointegration and osteoinduction, while also giving an antibacterial effect without cytotoxicity would be ideal, though it remains challenging. Nanotopographical surface modification is an interesting candidate for orthopaedic implants. The current success of nanoscale surface feature design is due not only to promotion of osteogenesis but some surface features also prevent bacterial adhesion. Therefore, understanding the difference between surface patterns and their interaction with osteoblasts and bacteria is crucial for nanotopographic design. Puckett et al. studied bacterial adhesion on different nanotopographic patterns on titanium including nanotubular, nanotextured and nanorough. Nanorough created by electron beam evaporation decreased adhesion of S. aureus, S. epidermidis and P. Aeruginosa, while nanotubular and nanorough fabricated by anodisation increased bacterial adhesion.¹²⁴

Topographical modification for improved osteointegration

There are various techniques for patterning material surfaces at the nanoscale such as photolithography, polymer demixing, electron beam lithography and anodisation, the more common examples are summarised in Table 1.¹³⁶ Many of these show induction of osteogenesis including nanotubes,¹²⁶ nanopits,¹³⁷ nanopores¹³⁸ and nanopillars.¹³²

Table 1.

Examples of nanopatterning on titanium surface and fabrication techniques.

Nanotopography	Materials	Technique	Reference
Nanotubes	Titania	Template-assisted method	Tan et al.¹²⁵
		Anodisation	Gulati et al.,¹²⁶ Park et al.,¹²⁷ Pozio et al.¹²⁸ and Oh et al.¹²⁹
		Hydrothermal	Liu et al.¹³⁰
Nanowires	Titanium	Hydrothermal	Tsimbouri et al.⁸⁴ and Pan et al.¹³¹
Nanotexture	Titanium	Anodisation	Puckett et al.¹²⁴
Nanopillars	Titanium	Anodisation	Sjöström and colleagues^132,133
Nanophase	Titania	Sintering	Webster et al.¹³⁴
Nanorod	Titanium	Anodisation	Ning et al.¹³⁵

Surface antibacterial modification

Ideal antibacterial implant coatings should be biocompatible with no local or systemic toxicity, easy to use with proven antibacterial effects, as well as inexpensive and easy to manufacture.¹³⁹ The currently available products in the market are shown in Table 2. The most commonly used involve either antibiotic loading or silver ions; however, these products are expensive, cause local cell toxicity and the long-term side effects and clinical outcomes require further study.

Table 2.

Examples of available antibacterial techniques and orthopaedic implants in the market.

Products	Brand	Technique	Outcomes	References
Antibiotic-coated tibial nail	PROtect, Synthes	Titanium alloy tibial nail coated with gentamicin sulphate	19 patients, good fracture healing	Fuchs et al.¹⁴⁰
Antibiotic-coated external fixator pins	OrthoGuard AB, Smith & Nephew	Gentamicin-coated polyurethane sleeve	In vitro, >80 µg/mL at 2 h and 1 day elution time points, >4 µg/mL MIC breakpoint for at least 4 weeks	Forster et al.¹⁴¹
Antibiotic-loaded hydrogel for implant coating	Defensive antibacterial coating, DAC, Novagenit, Italy	Antibiotic-loaded degradable hydrogel-linked hyaluronan and poly(d,l-lactide)	Reduce rate of post-surgical site infections after internal fixation in closed fractures	Drago et al.¹⁴² and Malizos et al.¹⁴³
Silver ions–coated titanium alloy endoprosthesis	Agluna, Accentus	Anodisation of titanium implant	N = 170, lower infection rate compared to control	Wafa et al.¹⁴⁴

MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration.

Current techniques for reducing bacterial attachment and biofilm formation include anti-adhesive function and bactericidal function. Examples of available strategies for antibacterial treatment including surface coating, nanotopography, as well as dual-function are shown in Figure 4 and Tables 3 and 4.

Figure 4.

Planktonic bacteria attach on material surface and form biofilms. (a) Various techniques were used as antibacterial strategies. Anti-adhesive surface coats using concepts of surface chemistry and functionality including ions¹⁴⁵ and polymer coats.¹⁴⁶ (b) Material surface can be coated with bactericidal substances such as antibiotics¹⁴⁷ and silver.¹⁴⁸ (c) Nanotopographic surface modifications were also effective strategies used as either anti-adhesives or bactericidal. (d) The examples of nanotopography, such as nanowires promoting osteoblastogenesis and have bactericidal effects.⁸⁴ Other bactericidal topographies include nanotubes (permission from Yu et al.¹⁴⁹) and cicada wings (permission from Ivanova et al.⁸⁰).

Table 3.

Examples of surface coating.

	Coating substrate	Coating technique	Material	Bacteria	References
Bactericidal	Silver	Galvanic deposition	Titanium	Staphylococcus aureus	Gosheger et al.¹⁴⁸
	Zinc oxide nanoparticles	EHDA deposition	Glass	S. aureus	Memarzadeh et al.¹⁵⁰
	Iodine	Anodic oxidation coating	Titanium pins	S. aureus Escherichia coli	Shirai and colleagues^151,152
	Chitosan–vancomycin	Electrophoretic deposition	Titanium	S. aureus	Ordikhani et al.¹⁵³
	Silver and copper ion implantation	Ion implantation with MEVVA ion source	317L stainless steelTitanium, titanium alloy	S. aureus	Wan et al.¹⁵⁴
Anti-adhesion	Silicon ions	Ion implanter with Si sputtering targets	316LVM stainless steel	S. aureus Staphylococcus epidermidis	Braceras et al.¹⁴⁵
	Selenium	Dried in laminar airflow conditions	Titanium alloy	S. aureus S. epidermidis	Holinka et al.¹⁵⁵
	Poly(ethylene glycol)-based polymer coating	Spin-coating	Glass	S. aureus S. epidermidis	Saldarriaga Fernández et al.¹⁴⁶
	Polyethylene oxide	Directly exposed	Silicon rubber sheet	S. aureus S. epidermidis	Nejadnik et al.¹⁵⁶
Dual function (anti-bacteria and promote osteogenesis)	Poly(l-lysine)-grafted-poly(ethylene glycol) and RGD	Direct adsorption	Titanium oxide	S. aureus	Harris et al.¹⁵⁷
	Dextran-BMP2	Dopamine	Ti-6Al-4V	S. aureus S. epidermidis	Shi et al.¹⁵⁸
	Surface-grafted Chitosan and RGD peptide	Dopamine-glutaraldehyde anchoring	Ti-6Al-4V	S. aureus S. epidermidis	Shi et al.¹⁵⁹

EHDA: electrohydrodynamic atomisation; MEVVA: metal vapor vacuum arc.

Table 4.

Examples of topographic surface modification.

	Topographic patterns	Fabrication techniques	Materials	Bacteria	References
Bactericidal	Gecko-skin	–	Luciobarbus steindachneri	Porphyromonas gingivalis	Watson et al.¹⁶⁰
	Nanopillars (Cicada-inspired)	–	Psaltoda claripennis	Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Ivanova et al.⁸⁰
	Nanopillars	Reactive-ion beam etching	Black silicon	P. aeruginosa	Ivanova et al.¹⁶¹
	Nanowire array (brush type/niche type) (Cicada-inspired)	Alkaline hydrothermal	TiO₂	P. aeruginosa	Diu et al.¹⁶²
	Micro-nano (dragonfly wings inspired)	Hydrothermal etching	Titanium	P. aeruginosa	Bhadra et al.¹⁶³
Anti-adhesion	Lotus leaf-inspired (Nelumbo nucifera)	Femtosecond laser ablation	Titanium	Staphylococcus aureus Staphylococcus epidermidis	Truong et al.¹⁶⁴
	Lamella-like	Direct laser interference patterning (DLIP)	Polystyrene	S. aureus	Valle et al.¹⁶⁵
	Microscale cross patterned	Moulding	Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) urinary catheter	Enterobacter. cloacae	Vasudevan et al.¹⁶⁶
	Sharklet micropattern (shark skin-inspired)	Emboss/cast	Polydimethylsiloxane elastomer, acrylic films	S. aureus (MSSA, MRSA)	Mann et al.¹⁶⁷
Dual function (anti-bacteria and promote osteogenesis)	Nano-microphase grain	Compacts and sintered	ZnO and TiO₂	S. epidermidis	Colon et al.⁸⁹
	Topography and chemical patterns	Pulsed plasma polymerisation and UV-irradiation	Silicon wafers	E. coli	Ploux et al.¹⁶⁸
	Nanowires	Hydrothermal treatment	TiO₂	P. aeruginosa	Tsimbouri et al.⁸⁴
	Sr- and Ag-loaded nanotubes	Anodised titanium, Sr(OH)₂ hydrothermal and soaked in AgNO₃	Titanium foils	S. aureus (MRSA and MSSA) E. coli	Cheng et al.¹⁶⁹
	Zn incorporated nanotubes	Anodisation and hydrothermal treatment in Zn-containing solutions	Titanium	S. aureus	Huo et al.¹⁷⁰

MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA: methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus.

Anti-adhesive function

Topographic modification

The effects of microscale topography on bacterial adhesion remain controversial. Whitehead et al.⁹⁰ demonstrated that bacteria can be retained in pits (substratum layer) depending on bacterial size and pit size, however, other authors have suggested that microscale surface roughness does not affect bacterial adhesion.^171,172 Interestingly, some nanoscale topographic features can promote cell differentiation while decreasing bacterial adhesion. Ploux et al.¹⁶⁸ created nanoscale pattern on silicon wafers by UV-photolithography. This surface reduced bacterial adhesion and allowed human osteoprogenitor cell adhesion.

Surface chemistry modification/surface coating

Ionic implantation/element coating

Silver ion coating of biomaterials has been widely studied. Della Valle et al.¹⁷³ used anodic spark deposition (ASD) treatment to incorporate chemical elements such as silver nanoparticles, calcium or silicon into titanium oxide. They showed that the silver nanoparticle coating reduced bacterial adhesion, as well as being biologically safe. Combinations of nanotopographic surfaces and silver coating have also been studied. Das et al.¹⁷⁴ fabricated titania nanotubes by anodisation and subsequently treated with silver deposition. These nanotubes showed good osteoblast adhesion and proliferation, while P. aeruginosa colonies were reduced.

Selenium is another element that can inhibit bacterial attachment. Holinka et al.¹⁵⁵ studied the effect of sodium selenite coating of titanium discs on bacterial adhesion and showed that it can reduce S. epidermidis adhesion without significant changes in the growth of MG63 cells.

Surface functionality (receptor/ligand interaction)

Polymer brush is a technique attaching polymer chains such as polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyethylene oxide (PEO)^156,175 onto surfaces to prevent bacterial adhesion and protein adsorption. Nejadnik et al.¹⁵⁶ showed that PEO can reduce Staphylococci adhesion; however, polymer brush coatings are easily removed by even fluid shear, which is challenging for clinical applications.

Bactericidal function

Topography modification

Ivanova et al.⁸⁰ first noted the antibacterial effect of cicada wings (P. claripennis) against P. aeruginosa. The nanoscale pillars seen on cicada and dragonfly wings exhibit not only a self-cleaning property, as shown by the reduction of WCA, but also incorporate bactericidal effects. Hasan et al.¹⁷⁶ further showed that these wing nanopillars effectively clear Gram-negative bacteria. Ivanova et al.¹⁶¹ then fabricated nanosurface patterns on black silicon by reactive-ion beam etching. This technique created nanofeatures mimicking dragonfly wings (Diplacodes bipunctata), which also showed effective bactericidal properties. Further to these studies, several authors have reported the antibacterial efficacy of titania nanowires by hydrothermal oxidation of titanium surfaces. Diu et al.¹⁶² engineered hydrothermal-treated nanowire arrays that can damage the bacterial membrane while also promoting adhesion and proliferation of MG63 cells. Bhadra et al.¹⁶³ showed not only the bactericidal effect of nanowire arrays on P. aeruginosa but also their ability to enhance fibroblast proliferation. Tsimbouri et al.⁸⁴ elegantly elucidated the osteogenic effect of hydrothermally treated titania nanowires. Using an osteoblast–osteoclast co-culture, they showed that nanowires reduce osteoclast maturation, promote osteogenesis as well as confirm the bactericidal effect on P. aeruginosa.

Surface chemistry modification/surface coating

Metals, for example, silver, zinc and copper. Silver nanoparticles can inhibit bacterial growth and have low risk of development of bacterial resistance.¹⁷⁷ Gosheger et al.¹⁴⁸ studied the bactericidal effectiveness of silver-coated mega-endoprostheses in a rabbit model. They showed significantly lower infection rates when compared to the control group. Copper and zinc also show bactericidal effects by providing oxidative stress, protein dysfunction and membrane damage.¹⁷⁸ Memarzadeh et al.¹⁵⁰ showed that zinc oxide nanoparticle coating inhibited S. aureus adhesion and promoted osteoblast growth.

Non-metal elements, for example, selenium and iodine. Shirai et al.¹⁵¹ demonstrated that iodine-supported titanium can inhibit bacterial colonisation and promote osteoconductivity, noted by osteoid formation surrounding titanium external fixator pins. Tsuchiya et al.¹⁵² conducted a clinical study in 222 patients using iodine supports by anodic oxidation coating. The results revealed effective infection prevention without adverse effects.

Antimicrobial polymers

Timofeeva and Kleshcheva¹⁷⁹ described the use of positively charged polymers (such as quaternary ammonium or phosphonium polymers) to attack bacterial surfaces, which are negatively charged. These polymers act as surfactants which can damage bacterial cell walls and cell membranes, resulting in cell lysis.¹⁸⁰

Organic origin, for example, antibiotics, anti-infective peptides and chitosan

Antibiotic coating

There are many ways to deliver antibiotic drugs such as loading antibiotic in bone cement or degradable materials and superficial modification of materials through covalently binding antibiotics or composite materials consisting of antibiotics embedded in gel or solid matrix.¹⁸¹ Examples of antibiotic elution are gentamicin-loaded poly-l-lactide (PLLA) and gentamicin-loaded poly(d,l-lactide) (PDLLA).¹⁶⁸ Kazemzadeh-Narbat et al.¹⁸² showed that the use of cationic antimicrobial peptides combined with HA coating on titanium worked against P. aeruginosa in vitro. Systemic side effects of antibiotic-loaded materials are rare; however, antibiotic resistance and bone ingrowth disturbance must be considered.

Chitosan coating

Chitosan itself has bactericidal effects¹⁸³ and can be used as a drug-eluting coating. Ordikhani et al.¹⁵³ coated titanium surfaces with chitosan–vancomycin composite by a cathodic electrophoretic deposition technique. Lin et al.¹⁸⁴ and Yang et al. fabricated quaternized chitosan derivative (hydroxypropyltrimethyl ammonium chloride chitosan)-loaded titania nanotubes produced by titanium anodisation.¹⁸⁴ In vitro they demonstrated that these techniques can inhibit S. aureus and S. epidermidis adhesion. Along with rat model study, they showed a good biocompatibility with osteogenic cells.¹⁸⁵

Other mechanisms

Competing interaction molecules

Heparin. Generally, Staphylococcus adheres to fibronectin using MSCRAMMs on the bacterial surface. Heparin competes with bacterial binding to fibronectin, resulting in a decrease in bacterial adhesion to the extracellular matrix.¹⁸⁶

Potential adverse effects from surface modification

Wear particles, from both bearing and implant materials, may have local and systemic implications. Wear particles have been found in liver, spleen and lymph nodes,¹⁸⁷ and silver nanoparticles have been identified in brain astrocytes.¹⁸⁸ Wear particles, particularly polyethylene, are one of the primary causes of periprosthetic osteolysis resulting implant loosening and failure. Particle size plays an important role in determining the cellular reaction. Particle sizes >500 nm tend to be engulfed by professional phagocytes using an actin-dependent mechanism,¹⁸⁹ while small particles are endocytosed by non-professional phagocytic cells. Ti wear particles (1.5–4 µm) have negative effects on osteoblast proliferation and viability,¹⁹⁰ induce fibroblasts to release matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) resulting in osteolysis¹⁹¹ and increase MMP2 and 9 activity, resulting in reduction of bone formation.¹⁹² Micrometric Ti particles impaired Saos-2 adhesion strength, migration and proliferation.¹⁹³ Furthermore, Ti wear particles stimulate production of inflammatory cytokines, induce lymphocytes to start a type IV immune reaction¹⁹⁴ and increase vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression and p44/42 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) activation in monocytes and macrophages.¹⁹⁵

Ti dioxide (TiO₂) is widely used for nanoscale surface modification; however, wear nanoparticles specific to TiO₂ may have adverse effects. TiO₂ nanoparticles have been shown to disseminate to heart, lung and liver and can cross the placenta.^196,197 They have been shown to transfer to offspring and affect the cranial nerve systems in a mouse model,¹⁹⁸ have multiple immunomodulatory effects and may be associated with genotoxicity.¹⁹⁹ In the local environment, TiO₂ nanoparticles have been shown to adversely affect cell migration and MSC differentiation in rats.²⁰⁰ However, no long-term clinical studies have shown any adverse effects from the dissemination of TiO₂ particles.

Conclusion and future perspective

Prosthetic and bone infections are devastating to patients and healthcare services. We have reviewed the manner in which bacteria interact with implants and host cells and developing surface modification strategies using titanium implants to prevent bacterial adhesion, while maintaining or improving implant osseointegration. Many surface modification strategies have been developed over recent years with some promising success in vitro, but many have yet to find in vivo or clinical use. We would anticipate the adoption of these promising surface modifications to help prevent bacterial colonisation of implants in the future and provide better treatment options.

Footnotes

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the late Prof. Adam G. Curtis for the inspirational discussions when he was in the Centre for Cell Engineering. The authors thank Dr Ewan Ross and Dr Tom Hodgkinson for constructive criticism. The authors contributed equally to the preparation of this review.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship and/or publication of this article: This study was funded through EPSRC grant EP/K034898/1 and EP/K035142/1.

ORCID iD

Laila Damiati,

References

Gray

Peters

Verstegen

et al . Effect of extracellular slime substance from Staphylococcus epidermidis on the human cellular immune response. Lancet 1984; 1(8373): 365–367.

Duguid

Evans

Brown

MRW

et al . Effect of biofilm culture upon the susceptibility of Staphylococcus epidermidis to tobramycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992; 30(6): 803–810.

Thurlow

Hanke

Fritz

et al . Staphylococcus aureus biofilms prevent macrophage phagocytosis and attenuate inflammation in vivo. J Immunol 2011; 186(11): 6585–6596.

Høiby

Bjarnsholt

Givskov

et al . Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2010; 35: 322–332.

Nakaguma

Matsumoto

Hirata

et al . Bacterial endophthalmitis following cataract surgery. Japanese Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology 2003; 57: 1481–1485.

Gottenbos

Busscher

Van der Mei

et al . Pathogenesis and prevention of biomaterial centered infections. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2002; 13(8): 717–722.

Darouiche

RO.

Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med 2004; 350(14): 1422–1429.

Matthews

Berendt

McNally

et al . Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection. BMJ 2009; 338: b1773.

Otchwemah

Grams

Tjardes

et al . Bacterial contamination of open fractures – pathogens, antibiotic resistances and therapeutic regimes in four hospitals of the trauma network Cologne, Germany. Injury 2015; 46: S104–S108.

10.

Kurtz

Lau

Watson

et al . Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27(8 suppl. 1): 61.e1–65.e1.

11.

National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry 13th annual report, 2016, http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/13th%20Annual%20Report/07950%20NJR%20Annual%20Report%202016%20ONLINE%20REPORT.pdf

12.

Walls

Roche

O’Rourke

et al . Surgical site infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus after primary total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90(3): 292–298.

13.

Sanchez

Ward

Romano

et al . Staphylococcus aureus biofilms decrease osteoblast viability, inhibits osteogenic differentiation, and increases bone resorption in vitro. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14(1): 187.

14.

Parvizi

Azzam

Ghanem

et al . Periprosthetic infection due to resistant staphylococci: serious problems on the horizon. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467(7): 1732–1739.

15.

Peres

Neves

Vieira

et al . Estratégia para Controlar o Staphylococcus Aureus Resistente à Meticilina: a Experiência de Cinco Anos de um Hospital. Acta Med Port 2014; 27(1): 67–72.

16.

McMinn

Snell

Daniel

et al . Mortality and implant revision rates of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: registry based cohort study. BMJ 2012; 344: e3319.

17.

Fraimow

HS.

Systemic antimicrobial therapy in osteomyelitis. Semin Plast Surg 2009; 23(2): 90–99.

18.

Osmon

Berbari

Berendt

et al . Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56: e1–e25.

19.

Klemm

Gentamicin-PMMA-beads in treating bone and soft tissue infections (author’s transl). Zentralbl Chir 1979; 104(14): 934–942.

20.

Springer

Lee

G-C

Osmon

et al . Systemic safety of high-dose antibiotic-loaded cement spacers after resection of an infected total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 427: 47–51.

21.

Isefuku

Joyner

Simpson

AH.

Gentamicin may have an adverse effect on osteogenesis. J Orthop Trauma 2003; 17(3): 212–216.

22.

Edin

Miclau

Lester

et al . Effect of cefazolin and vancomycin on osteoblasts in vitro. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 333: 245–251.

23.

Jevon

Guo

et al . Mechanisms of internalization of Staphylococcus aureus by cultured human osteoblasts. Infect Immun 1999; 67(5): 2677–2681.

24.

Boyle

Simonet

Lacey

DL.

Osteoclast differentiation and activation. Nature 2003; 423(6937): 337–342.

25.

Crémieux

Dumitrescu

Lina

et al . Panton-valentine leukocidin enhances the severity of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rabbit osteomyelitis. PLoS ONE 2009; 4(9): e7204.

26.

Rasigade

Trouillet-Assant

Ferry

et al . PSMs of hypervirulent Staphylococcus aureus act as intracellular toxins that kill infected osteoblasts. PLoS ONE 2013; 8(5): e63176.

27.

Alexander

Rivera

Marriott

et al . Staphylococcus aureus–induced tumor necrosis factor–related apoptosis–inducing ligand expression mediates apoptosis and caspase-8 activation in infected osteoblasts. BMC Microbiol 2003; 3(1): 5.

28.

Kassem

Lindholm

Lerner

UH.

Toll-like receptor 2 stimulation of osteoblasts mediates Staphylococcus aureus induced bone resorption and osteoclastogenesis through enhanced RANKL. PLoS ONE 2016; 11(6): e0156708.

29.

Dapunt

Maurer

Giese

et al . The macrophage inflammatory proteins MIP1α (CCL3) and MIP2α (CXCL2) in implant-associated osteomyelitis: linking inflammation to bone degradation. Mediators Inflamm 2014; 2014: 728619.

30.

Kaandorp

CJE

Dinant

Laar

MAFJ

et al . Incidence and sources of native and prosthetic joint infection: a community based prospective survey. Ann Rheum Dis 1997; 56(8): 470–475.

31.

Kim

Yang

Park

et al . Lipoproteins are an important bacterial component responsible for bone destruction through the induction of osteoclast differentiation and activation. J Bone Miner Res 2013; 28(11): 2381–2391.

32.

Fournier

The function of TLR2 during staphylococcal diseases. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2012; 2: 167.

33.

Boyce

Xing

Schwarz

EM.

13 – The role of the immune system and bone cells in acute and chronic osteomyelitis. In: Lorenzo

Choi

Horowitz

et al . (eds) Osteoimmunology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2011, pp. 369–389.

34.

Lorenzo

Horowitz

Choi

Osteoimmunology: interactions of the bone and immune system. Endocr Rev 2008; 29: 403–440.

35.

Josse

Velard

Gangloff

SC.

Staphylococcus aureus vs osteoblast: relationship and consequences in osteomyelitis. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2015; 5: 85.

36.

Marriott

Apoptosis-associated uncoupling of bone formation and resorption in osteomyelitis. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2013; 3: 101.

37.

Hong

Qian

et al . Cross talk between the bone and immune systems: osteoclasts function as antigen-presenting cells and activate CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Blood 2010; 116(2): 210–217.

38.

Ishii

Kikuta

Shimazu

et al . Chemorepulsion by blood S1P regulates osteoclast precursor mobilization and bone remodeling in vivo. J Exp Med 2010; 207(13): 2793–2798.

39.

Trouillet-Assant

Gallet

Nauroy

et al . Dual impact of live Staphylococcus aureus on the osteoclast lineage, leading to increased bone resorption. J Infect Dis 2015; 211(4): 571–581.

40.

Joh

Wann

Kreikemeyer

et al . Role of fibronectin-binding MSCRAMMs in bacterial adherence and entry into mammalian cells. Matrix Biol 1999; 18(3): 211–223.

41.

Menzies

BE.

The role of fibronectin binding proteins in the pathogenesis of Staphylococcus aureus infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2003; 16(3): 225–229.

42.

Hudson

Ramp

Frankenburg

KP.

Staphylococcus aureus adhesion to bone matrix and bone-associated biomaterials. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1999; 173(2): 279–284.

43.

Arciola

Campoccia

Ehrlich

et al . Biofilm-based implant infections in orthopaedics. Adv Exp Med Biol 2015; 830: 29–46.

44.

Testoni

Montanaro

Poggi

et al . Internalization by osteoblasts of two Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates differing in their adhesin gene pattern. Int J Artif Organs 2011; 34(9): 789–798.

45.

Sinha

François

Nüsse

et al . Fibronectin-binding protein acts as Staphylococcus aureus invasin via fibronectin bridging to integrin alpha5beta1. Cell Microbiol 1999; 1(2): 101–117.

46.

Katsikogianni

Missirlis

YF.

Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterials and of techniques used in estimating bacteria-material interactions. Eur Cell Mater 2004; 8: 37–57.

47.

Friedman

RJ.

Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 1998; 43: 338–348.

48.

Kuntiya

Nicolella

Pyle

et al . Effect of sodium chloride on cell surface hydrophobicity and formation of biofilm in membrane bioreactor. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol 2005; 27(5): 1073–1082.

49.

Logan

BE.

Bacterial adhesion to glass and metal-oxide surfaces. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2004; 36(2): 81–90.

50.

Wyatt

Hooper

Frampton

et al . Survival outcomes of cemented compared to uncemented stems in primary total hip replacement. World J Orthop 2014; 5(5): 591–596.

51.

Zobell

CE.

The effect of solid surfaces upon bacterial activity. J Bacteriol 1943; 46(1): 39–56.

52.

Rijnaarts

HHM

Norde

Bouwer

et al . Reversibility and mechanism of bacterial adhesion. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 1995; 4: 5–22.

53.

Mayer

Moritz

Kirschner

et al . The role of intermolecular interactions: studies on model systems for bacterial biofilms. Int J Biol Macromol 1999; 26(1): 3–16.

54.

Poortinga

Bos

Norde

et al . Electric double layer interactions in bacterial adhesion to surfaces. Surf Sci Rep 2002; 47: 1–32.

55.

Desmond-Le Quéméner

Bouchez

. A thermodynamic theory of microbial growth. ISME J 2014; 8(8): 1747–1751.

56.

Morra

Cassinelli

Bacterial adhesion to polymer surfaces: a critical review of surface thermodynamic approaches. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 1997; 9(1): 55–74.

57.

Hermansson

The DLVO theory in microbial adhesion. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 1999; 14: 105–119.

58.

Jucker

Zehnder

AJB

Harms

Quantification of polymer interactions in bacterial adhesion. Environ Sci Technol 1998; 32(19): 2909–2915.

59.

O’Gara

Humphreys

Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms: importance and implications. J Med Microbiol 2001; 50: 582–587.

60.

Mack

Molecular mechanisms of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm formation. J Hosp Infect 1999; 43(suppl.): S113–S125.

61.

Dalton

March

. Molecular genetics of bacterial attachment and biofouling. Curr Opin Biotechnol 1998; 9: 252–255.

62.

Kjelleberg

Molin

Is there a role for quorum sensing signals in bacterial biofilms?

Curr Opin Microbiol 2002; 5(3): 254–258.

63.

Koch

Worm

Jensen

et al . Carbon limitation induces sigma(S)-dependent gene expression in Pseudomonas fluorescens in soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001; 67(8): 3363–3370.

64.

Stewart

Costerton

JW.

Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. Lancet 2001; 358(9276): 135–138.

65.

Chen

Zhang

Bott

TR.

Direct measurement of the adhesive strength of biofilms in pipes by micromanipulation. Biotechnol Tech 1998; 12(12): 875–880.

66.

Costerton

Montanaro

Arciola

CR.

Biofilm in implant infections: its production and regulation. Int J Artif Organs 2005; 28(11): 1062–1068.

67.

Mack

Becker

Chatterjee

et al . Mechanisms of biofilm formation in Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus: functional molecules, regulatory circuits, and adaptive responses. Int J Med Microbiol 2004; 294: 203–212.

68.

Romanò

Toscano

Romanò

et al . Antibiofilm agents and implant-related infections in orthopaedics: where are we? J Chemother 2013; 25(2): 67–80.

69.

McConoughey

Howlin

Granger

et al . Biofilms in periprosthetic orthopedic infections. Future Microbiol 2014; 9(8): 987–1007.

70.

Ribeiro

Monteiro

Ferraz

MP.

Infection of orthopedic implants with emphasis on bacterial adhesion process and techniques used in studying bacterial-material interactions. Biomatter 2012; 2(4): 176–194.

71.

Arciola

Campoccia

Speziale

et al . Biofilm formation in Staphylococcus implant infections. A review of molecular mechanisms and implications for biofilm-resistant materials. Biomaterials 2012; 33: 5967–5982.

72.

Lappin-Scott

Burton

Stoodley

Revealing a world of biofilms – the pioneering research of Bill Costerton. Nat Rev Microbiol 2014; 12(11): 781–787.

73.

Ivanova

Truong

Webb

et al . Differential attraction and repulsion of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa on molecularly smooth titanium films. Sci Rep 2011; 1(1): 165.

74.

Ivanova

Pham

Wright

et al . Detection of coccoid forms of Sulfitobacter mediterraneus using atomic force microscopy. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2002; 214: 177–181.

75.

Rowan

Wheeler

Crooks

RM.

Patterning bacteria within hyperbranched polymer film templates. Langmuir 2002; 18(25): 9914–9917.

76.

Rozhok

Fan

Nyamjav

et al . Attachment of motile bacterial cells to prealigned holed microarrays. Langmuir 2006; 22(26): 11251–11254.

77.

Ivanova

Mitik-Dineva

Wang

et al . Staleya guttiformis attachment on poly(tert-butylmethacrylate) polymeric surfaces. Micron 2008; 39(8): 1197–1204.

78.

Webb

Crawford

Sawabe

et al . Poly(ethylene terephthalate) polymer surfaces as a substrate for bacterial attachment and biofilm formation. Microbes Environ 2009; 24(1): 39–42.

79.

Mitik-Dineva

Wang

Truong

et al . Bacterial attachment on optical fibre surfaces. Biofouling 2010; 26(4): 461–471.

80.

Ivanova

Hasan

Webb

et al . Natural bactericidal surfaces: mechanical rupture of Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells by cicada wings. Small 2012; 8(16): 2489–2494.

81.

Hsu

Fang

Borca-Tasciuc

et al . Effect of micro- and nanoscale topography on the adhesion of bacterial cells to solid surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol 2013; 79(8): 2703–2712.

82.

Scheuerman

Camper

Hamilton

Effects of substratum topography on bacterial adhesion. J Colloid Interface Sci 1998; 208: 23–33.

83.

Edwards

Rutenberg

AD.

Microbial response to surface microtopography: the role of metabolism in localized mineral dissolution. Chem Geol 2001; 180(1–4): 19–32.

84.

Tsimbouri

Fisher

Holloway

et al . Osteogenic and bactericidal surfaces from hydrothermal titania nanowires on titanium substrates. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 36857.

85.

Truong

Lapovok

Estrin

et al . The influence of nano-scale surface roughness on bacterial adhesion to ultrafine-grained titanium. Biomaterials 2010; 31(13): 3674–3683.

86.

Teughels

Van Assche

Sliepen

et al . Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17: 68–81.

87.

Pier-Francesco

Adams

Waters

MGJ

et al . Titanium surface modification and its effect on the adherence of Porphyromonas gingivalis: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17(6): 633–637.

88.

Kubacka

Diez

Rojo

et al . Understanding the antimicrobial mechanism of TiO2-based nanocomposite films in a pathogenic bacterium. Sci Rep 2015; 4(1): 4134.

89.

Colon

Ward

Webster

TJ.

Increased osteoblast and decreased Staphylococcus epidermidis functions on nanophase ZnO and TiO2. J Biomed Mater Res A 2006; 78(3): 595–604.

90.

Whitehead

Colligon

Verran

Retention of microbial cells in substratum surface features of micrometer and sub-micrometer dimensions. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2005; 41(2–3): 129–138.

91.

Duarte

Reis

de Freitas

et al . Bacterial adhesion on smooth and rough titanium surfaces after treatment with different instruments. J Periodontol 2009; 80(11): 1824–1832.

92.

Tsuang

Y-H

Sun

J-S

Huang

Y-C

et al . Studies of photokilling of bacteria using titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Artif Organs 2008; 32(2): 167–174.

93.

Verdier

Coutand

Bertron

et al . Antibacterial activity of TiO2 photocatalyst alone or in coatings on E. coli: the influence of methodological aspects. Coatings 2014; 4(3): 670–686.

94.

Regonini

Jaroenworaluck

Stevens

et al . Effect of heat treatment on the properties and structure of TiO2 nanotubes: phase composition and chemical composition. Surf Interface Anal 2010; 42(3): 139–144.

95.

Shin

Shokuhfar

Choi

et al . Wettability changes of TiO2 nanotube surfaces. Nanotechnology 2011; 22(31): 315704.

96.

Zhu

Chen

Scheideler

et al . Effects of topography and composition of titanium surface oxides on osteoblast responses. Biomaterials 2004; 25(18): 4087–4103.

97.

Narendrakumara

Kulkarnib

Addisona

et al . Adherence of oral streptococci to nanostructured titanium surfaces. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 1460–1468.

98.

De Avila

De Molon

Lima

et al . Impact of physical chemical characteristics of abutment implant surfaces on bacteria adhesion. J Oral Implantol 2016; 42(2): 153–158.

99.

Garrett

Bhakoo

Zhang

Bacterial adhesion and biofilms on surfaces. Prog Nat Sci 2008; 18(9): 1049–1056.

100.

Stepanovic

Cirkovic

Mijac

et al . Influence of the incubation temperature, atmosphere and dynamic conditions on biofilm formation by Salmonella spp. Food Microbiol 2003; 20(3): 339–343.

101.

Nisbet

Sutherland

Bradshaw

et al . XM-6: a new gel-forming bacterial polysaccharide. Carbohyd Polym 1984; 4(5): 377–394.

102.

H erald

Zottola

. Attachment of Listeria monocytogenes to stainless steel surfaces at various temperatures and pH values. J Food Sci 1988; 53(5): 1549–1562.

103.

Bunt

Jones

Tucker

IG.

The effects of pH, ionic strength and polyvalent ions on the cell surface hydrophobicity of Escherichia coli evaluated by the BATH and HIC methods. Int J Pharm 1995; 113(2): 257–261.

104.

Sanderson

Guo

Jacob

et al . The interaction of cationic liposomes with the skin-associated bacterium Staphylococcus epidermidis: effects of ionic strength and temperature. Biochim Biophys Acta 1996; 1283(2): 207–214.

105.

McWhirter

McQuillan

Bremer

PJ.

Influence of ionic strength and pH on the first 60 min of Pseudomonas aeruginosa attachment to ZnSe and to TiO2 monitored by ATR-IR spectroscopy. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2002; 26(4): 365–372.

106.

Olson

ER.

Influence of pH on bacterial gene expression. Mol Microbiol 1993; 8: 5–14.

107.

Y-H

Hanna

Svensater

et al . Cell density modulates acid adaptation in Streptococcus mutans: implications for survival in biofilms. J Bacteriol 2001; 183(23): 6875–6884.

108.

Arciola

Campoccia

Montanaro

Effects on antibiotic resistance of Staphylococcus epidermidis following adhesion to polymethylmethacrylate and to silicone surfaces. Biomaterials 2002; 23(6): 1495–1502.

109.

Schierholz

Beuth

Pulverer

Evidence for a self-fulfilling hypothesis: chlorhexidine dressing for reduction of microbial colonization of the skin with central venous catheters. J Hosp Infect 2000; 44(3): 241–243.

110.

Kohnen

Kolbenschlag

Teske-Keiser

et al . Development of a long-lasting ventricular catheter impregnated with a combination of antibiotics. Biomaterials 2003; 24(26): 4865–4869.

111.

Erikson

Carrell

McDonagh

Fibronectin molecule visualized in electron microscopy: a long, thin, flexible strand. J Cell Biol 1981; 91(3 pt 1): 673–678.

112.

Pankov

Fibronectin at a glance. J Cell Sci 2002; 115(20): 3861–3863.

113.

Erickson

Carrell

NA.

Fibronectin in extended and compact conformations. Electron microscopy and sedimentation analysis. J Biol Chem 1983; 258(23): 14539–14544.

114.

Hynes

RO.

Fibronectins. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990.

115.

Ballestrem

Hinz

Imhof

et al . Marching at the front and dragging behind: differential alphaVbeta3-integrin turnover regulates focal adhesion behavior. J Cell Biol 2001; 155(7): 1319–1332.

116.

Sakai

Johnson

Murozono

et al . Plasma fibronectin supports neuronal survival and reduces brain injury following transient focal cerebral ischemia but is not essential for skin-wound healing and hemostasis. Nat Med 2001; 7(3): 324–330.

117.

Llopis-Hernández

Cantini

González-García

et al . Material-driven fibronectin assembly for high-efficiency presentation of growth factors. Sci Adv 2016; 2: e1600188.

118.

Nijkeuter

Hemostasis and thrombosis: basic principles and clinical practice (ed Colman

Hirsh

Marder

et al .). 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2013.

119.

Cacciafesta

Humphris

ADL

Jandt

et al . Human plasma fibrinogen adsorption on ultraflat titanium oxide surfaces studied with atomic force microscopy. Langmuir 2000; 16(21): 8167–8175.

120.

Makela

Matilainen

Pulkkinen

et al . Failure rate of cemented and uncemented total hip replacements: register study of combined Nordic database of four nations. BMJ 2014; 348: f7592.

121.

Vercaigne

Wolke

Naert

et al . The effect of titanium plasma-sprayed implants on trabecular bone healing in the goat. Biomaterials 1998; 19(11–12): 1093–1099.

122.

Borsari

Fini

Giavaresi

et al . Osteointegration of titanium and hydroxyapatite rough surfaces in healthy and compromised cortical and trabecular bone: in vivo comparative study on young, aged, and estrogen-deficient sheep. J Orthop Res 2007; 25(9): 1250–1260.

123.

Chung

Long

HY.

Systematic strontium substitution in hydroxyapatite coatings on titanium via micro-arc treatment and their osteoblast/osteoclast responses. Acta Biomater 2011; 7(11): 4081–4087.

124.

Puckett

Taylor

Raimondo

et al . The relationship between the nanostructure of titanium surfaces and bacterial attachment. Biomaterials 2010; 31(4): 706–713.

125.

Tan

Pingguan-Murphy

Ahmad

et al . Review of titania nanotubes: fabrication and cellular response. Ceram Int 2012; 38: 4421–4435.

126.

Gulati

Maher

Findlay

et al . Titania nanotubes for orchestrating osteogenesis at the bone-implant interface. Nanomedicine 2016; 11(14): 1847–1864.

127.

Park

Bauer

Von der Mark

et al . Nanosize and vitality: TiO2 nanotube diameter directs cell fate. Nano Lett 2007; 7(6): 1686–1691.

128.

Pozio

Palmieri

Girardi

et al . Titanium nanotubes activate genes related to bone formation in vitro. Dent Res J 2012; 9(suppl. 2): S164–S168.

129.

Daraio

Chen

et al . Significantly accelerated osteoblast cell growth on aligned TiO2 nanotubes. J Biomed Mater Res A 2006; 78(1): 97–103.

130.

Liu

Chen

Zhang

et al . A review on TiO2-based nanotubes synthesized via hydrothermal method: formation mechanism, structure modification, and photocatalytic applications. Catal Today 2014; 225: 34–51.

131.

Pan

Xie

et al . ROCK-regulated synergistic effect of macropore/nanowire topography on cytoskeletal distribution and cell differentiation. RSC Adv 2015; 5(123): 101834–101842.

132.

Sjöström

Dalby

Hart

et al . Fabrication of pillar-like titania nanostructures on titanium and their interactions with human skeletal stem cells. Acta Biomater 2009; 5(5): 1433–1441.

133.

Silverwood

Fairhurst

Sjöström

et al . Analysis of osteoclastogenesis/osteoblastogenesis on nanotopographical titania surfaces. Adv Healthc Mater 2016; 5(8): 947–955.

134.

Webster

Siegel

Bizios

Osteoblast adhesion on nanophase ceramics. Biomaterials 1999; 20(13): 1221–1227.

135.

Ning

Wang

Zhu

et al . Ti nanorod arrays with a medium density significantly promote osteogenesis and osteointegration. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 19047.

136.

Anselme

Davidson

Popa

et al . The interaction of cells and bacteria with surfaces structured at the nanometre scale. Acta Biomater 2010; 6(10): 3824–3846.

137.

Dalby

Gadegaard

Tare

et al . The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using nanoscale symmetry and disorder. Nat Mater 2007; 6(12): 997–1003.

138.

Popat

Chatvanichkul

Barnes

et al . Osteogenic differentiation of marrow stromal cells cultured on nanoporous alumina surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A 2007; 80(4): 955–964.

139.

Romanò

Scarponi

Gallazzi

et al . Antibacterial coating of implants in orthopaedics and trauma: a classification proposal in an evolving panorama. J Orthop Surg Res 2015; 10(1): 157.

140.

Fuchs

Stange

Schmidmaier

et al . The use of gentamicin-coated nails in the tibia: preliminary results of a prospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131(10): 1419–1425.

141.

Forster

Marotta

Heseltine

et al . Bactericidal activity of antimicrobial coated polyurethane sleeves for external fixation pins. J Orthop Res 2004; 22(3): 671–677.

142.

Drago

Boot

Dimas

et al . Does implant coating with antibacterial-loaded hydrogel reduce bacterial colonization and biofilm formation in vitro? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472(11): 3311–3323.

143.

Malizos

Blauth

Danita

et al . Fast-resorbable antibiotic-loaded hydrogel coating to reduce post-surgical infection after internal osteosynthesis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Traumatol 2017; 18(2): 159–169.

144.

Wafa

Grimer

Reddy

et al . Retrospective evaluation of the incidence of early periprosthetic infection with silver-treated endoprostheses in high-risk patients: case-control study. Bone Joint J 2015; 97(2): 252–257.

145.

Braceras

Pacha-Olivenza

Calzado-Martín

et al . Decrease of Staphylococcal adhesion on surgical stainless steel after Si ion implantation. Appl Surf Sci 2014; 310: 36–41.

146.

Saldarriaga Fernández

Van der Mei

Metzger

et al . In vitro and in vivo comparisons of staphylococcal biofilm formation on a cross-linked poly(ethylene glycol)-based polymer coating. Acta Biomater 2010; 6(3): 1119–1124.

147.

Zhang

BGX

Myers

Wallace

et al . Bioactive coatings for orthopaedic implants – recent trends in development of implant coatings. Int J Mol Sci 2014; 15: 11878–11921.

148.

Gosheger

Hardes

Ahrens

et al . Silver-coated megaendoprostheses in a rabbit model – an analysis of the infection rate and toxicological side effects. Biomaterials 2004; 25(24): 5547–5556.

149.

Jiang

Zhang

et al . The effect of anatase TiO2 nanotube layers on MC3T3-E1 preosteoblast adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation. J Biomed Mater Res A 2010; 94(4): 1012–1022.

150.

Memarzadeh

Sharili

Huang

et al . Nanoparticulate zinc oxide as a coating material for orthopedic and dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res A 2015; 103(3): 981–989.

151.

Shirai

Shimizu

Ohtani

et al . Antibacterial iodine-supported titanium implants. Acta Biomater 2011; 7(4): 1928–1933.

152.

Tsuchiya

Shirai

Nishida

et al . Innovative antimicrobial coating of titanium implants with iodine. J Orthop Sci 2012; 17(5): 595–604.

153.

Ordikhani

Tamjid

Simchi

Characterization and antibacterial performance of electrodeposited chitosan-vancomycin composite coatings for prevention of implant-associated infections. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2014; 41: 240–248.

154.

Wan

Xiong

Liang

et al . Modification of medical metals by ion implantation of copper. Appl Surf Sci 2007; 253(24): 9426–9429.

155.

Holinka

Pilz

Kubista

et al . Effects of selenium coating of orthopaedic implant surfaces on bacterial adherence and osteoblastic cell growth. Bone Joint J 2013; 95(5): 678–682.

156.

Nejadnik

van der Mei

Norde

et al . Bacterial adhesion and growth on a polymer brush-coating. Biomaterials 2008; 29(30): 4117–4121.

157.

Harris

Tosatti

Wieland

et al . Staphylococcus aureus adhesion to titanium oxide surfaces coated with non-functionalized and peptide-functionalized poly(L-lysine)-grafted-poly(ethylene glycol) copolymers. Biomaterials 2004; 25(18): 4135–4148.

158.

Shi

Neoh

Kang

E-T

et al . Titanium with surface-grafted dextran and immobilized bone morphogenetic protein-2 for inhibition of bacterial adhesion and enhancement of osteoblast functions. Tissue Eng Part A 2009; 15(2): 417–426.

159.

Shi

Neoh

Kang

et al . Bacterial adhesion and osteoblast function on titanium with surface-grafted chitosan and immobilized RGD peptide. J Biomed Mater Res A 2008; 86(4): 865–872.

160.

Watson

Green

Schwarzkopf

et al . A gecko skin micro/nano structure – a low adhesion, superhydrophobic, anti-wetting, self-cleaning, biocompatible, antibacterial surface. Acta Biomater 2015; 21: 109–122.

161.

Ivanova

Hasan

Webb

et al . Bactericidal activity of black silicon. Nat Commun 2013; 4: 2838.

162.

Diu

Faruqui

Sjöström

et al . Cicada-inspired cell-instructive nanopatterned arrays. Sci Rep 2014; 4: 7122.

163.

Bhadra

Truong

Pham

VTH

et al . Antibacterial titanium nano-patterned arrays inspired by dragonfly wings. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 16817.

164.

Truong

Webb

Fadeeva

et al . Air-directed attachment of coccoid bacteria to the surface of superhydrophobic lotus-like titanium. Biofouling 2012; 28(6): 539–550.

165.

Valle

Burgui

Langheinrich

et al . Evaluation of surface microtopography engineered by direct laser interference for bacterial anti-biofouling. Macromol Biosci 2015; 15(8): 1060–1069.

166.

Vasudevan

Kennedy

Merritt

et al . Microscale patterned surfaces reduce bacterial fouling – microscopic and theoretical analysis. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2014; 117: 225–232.

167.

Mann

Manna

Mettetal

et al . Surface micropattern limits bacterial contamination. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2014; 3(1): 28.

168.

Ploux

Anselme

Dirani

et al . Opposite responses of cells and bacteria to micro/nanopatterned surfaces prepared by pulsed plasma polymerization and UV-irradiation. Langmuir 2009; 25(14): 8161–8169.

169.

Cheng

Xiong

Fang

et al . Strontium (Sr) and silver (Ag) loaded nanotubular structures with combined osteoinductive and antimicrobial activities. Acta Biomater 2016; 31: 388–400.

170.

Huo

Zhang

Wang

et al . Osteogenic activity and antibacterial effects on titanium surfaces modified with Zn-incorporated nanotube arrays. Biomaterials 2013; 34(13): 3467–3478.

171.

Flint

Brooks

Bremer

PJ.

Properties of the stainless steel substrate, influencing the adhesion of thermo-resistant streptococci. J Food Eng 2000; 43(4): 235–242.

172.

Hilbert

Bagge-Ravn

Kold

et al . Influence of surface roughness of stainless steel on microbial adhesion and corrosion resistance. Int Biodeter Biodegr 2003; 52(3): 175–185.

173.

Della Valle

Visai

Santin

et al . A novel antibacterial modification treatment of titanium capable to improve osseointegration. Int J Artif Organs 2012; 35(10): 864–875.

174.

Das

Bose

Bandyopadhyay

et al . Surface coatings for improvement of bone cell materials and antimicrobial activities of Ti implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2008; 87(2): 455–460.

175.

Leckband

Sheth

Halperin

Grafted poly(ethylene oxide) brushes as nonfouling surface coatings. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 1999; 10(10): 1125–1147.

176.

Hasan

Webb

Truong

et al . Selective bactericidal activity of nanopatterned superhydrophobic cicada Psaltoda claripennis wing surfaces. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2013; 97(20): 9257–9262.

177.

Gallo

Panacek

Prucek

et al . Silver nanocoating technology in the prevention of prosthetic joint infection. Materials 2016; 9(5): E337.

178.

Lemire

Harrison

Turner

RJ.

Antimicrobial activity of metals: mechanisms, molecular targets and applications. Nat Rev Microbiol 2013; 11(6): 371–384.

179.

Timofeeva

Kleshcheva

Antimicrobial polymers: mechanism of action, factors of activity, and applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2011; 89: 475–492.

180.

Siedenbiedel

Tiller

JC.

Antimicrobial polymers in solution and on surfaces: overview and functional principles. Polymers 2012; 4(1): 46–71.

181.

Campoccia

Montanaro

Speziale

et al . Antibiotic-loaded biomaterials and the risks for the spread of antibiotic resistance following their prophylactic and therapeutic clinical use. Biomaterials 2010; 31(25): 6363–6377.

182.

Kazemzadeh-Narbat

Kindrachuk

Duan

et al . Antimicrobial peptides on calcium phosphate-coated titanium for the prevention of implant-associated infections. Biomaterials 2010; 31(36): 9519–9526.

183.

Rabea

Badawy

MET

Stevens

et al . Chitosan as antimicrobial agent: applications and mode of action. Biomacromolecules 2003; 4: 1457–1465.

184.

Lin

Zhang

Tan

et al . Inhibited bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on quaternized chitosan-loaded titania nanotubes with various diameters. Materials 2016; 9(3): E155.

185.

Yang

Wang

et al . Cytocompatibility with osteogenic cells and enhanced in vivo anti-infection potential of quaternized chitosan-loaded titania nanotubes. Bone Res 2016; 4: 16027.

186.

Arciola

Bustanji

Conti

et al . Staphylococcus epidermidis-fibronectin binding and its inhibition by heparin. Biomaterials 2003; 24(18): 3013–3019.

187.

Urban

Jacobs

Tomlinson

et al . Dissemination of wear particles to the liver, spleen, and abdominal lymph nodes of patients with hip or knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82(4): 457–476.

188.

Luther

Koehler

Diendorf

et al . Accumulation of silver nanoparticles by cultured primary brain astrocytes. Nanotechnology 2011; 22(37): 375101.

189.

Aderem

Underhill

DM.

Mechanisms of phagocytosis in macrophages. Annu Rev Immunol 1999; 17: 593–623.

190.

O’Connor

Choi

Kwon

et al . New insight into the mechanism of hip prosthesis loosening: effect of titanium debris size on osteoblast function. J Orthop Res 2004; 22(2): 229–236.

191.

Yao

Glant

Lark

et al . The potential role of fibroblasts in periprosthetic osteolysis: fibroblast response to titanium particles. J Bone Miner Res 1995; 10(9): 1417–1427.

192.

Choi

Koh

Kluess

et al . Effects of titanium particle size on osteoblast functions in vitro and in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102(12): 4578–4583.

193.

Saldaña

Vilaboa

Effects of micrometric titanium particles on osteoblast attachment and cytoskeleton architecture. Acta Biomater 2010; 6(4): 1649–1660.

194.

Goodman

SB.

Wear particles, periprosthetic osteolysis and the immune system. Biomaterials 2007; 28(34): 5044–5048.

195.

Miyanishi

Trindade

MCD

et al . Periprosthetic osteolysis: induction of vascular endothelial growth factor from human monocyte/macrophages by orthopaedic biomaterial particles. J Bone Miner Res 2003; 18(9): 1573–1583.

196.

Wang

Fan

Gao

et al . TiO2 nanoparticles translocation and potential toxicological effect in rats after intraarticular injection. Biomaterials 2009; 30(27): 4590–4600.

197.

Yamashita

Yoshioka

Higashisaka

et al . Silica and titanium dioxide nanoparticles cause pregnancy complications in mice. Nat Nanotechnol 2011; 6(5): 321–328.

198.

Takeda

Suzuki

Ishihara

et al . Nanoparticles transferred from pregnant mice to their offspring can damage the genital and cranial nerve systems. J Health Sci 2009; 55(1): 95–102.

199.

Lappas

CM.

The immunomodulatory effects of titanium dioxide and silver nanoparticles. Food Chem Toxicol 2015; 85: 78–83.

200.

Hou

Cai

et al . Effects of titanium nanoparticles on adhesion, migration, proliferation, and differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Int J Nanomedicine 2013; 8: 3619–3630.