4.6 Article

Effects of Sample Preparation on Bacterial Colonization of Polymers

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 2659-2664

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/la902920n

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [Y1-DE-7005-01, Y01 DE007005-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Characterization of materials developed for medical usage frequently includes studies in which the materials are inoculated with bacteria in order to assess bacterial colonization and biofilm formation. Observed differences in bacterial growth are typically considered to be due to the material or the incubation conditions. To our knowledge, the method Used to prepare the materials has generally not been considered with regard to its influence oil bacterial colonization. The objective of this study was to determine the effects that various preparation methods exert oil bacterial colonization of polymer disks. Polymer disks of the same dimethacrylate composition were photopolymerized: (1) between untreated glass slides, (2) between polyester release film, (3) between glass slides treated with all alkyl silane, (4) between glass slides treated with a perfluorinated silane, or (5) with one free surface in all argon-purged chamber. Surface chemistry was quantified using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, hydrophobicity was assessed by water contact angle, and topography was characterized using atomic force microscopy. The disks were inoculated with Streptococcus mutans For 4 h, fixed, and visualized using confocal laser scanning microscopy. Differences among all groups were found with regard to surface chemistry, hydrophobicity, topography, and bacteria morphology, density, and coverage, indicating that the method or sample preparation strongly affects both the Surface properties and the initial bacterial colonization. Polymerization Oil untreated slides was selected as the preferred method of preparation due to minimal material transfer to the polymer and consistent, reproducible bacterial colornization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据