Biophysical Properties of Foamed and Solid Polymers Used in Orthotics and Prosthetics

Overview

Journal Materials (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Date 2021 Nov 27

PMID 34832279

Authors

Klemen Bohinc

Anze Abram

Anamarija Zore

Roman Stukelj

Ana Lenarcic

Rajko Vidrih

Andrijana Sever Skapin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Orthotic and prosthetic materials should have good mechanical and antibacterial properties. Therefore, in our study, we consider four common foamed closed-cells and two solid polymeric materials regarding their mechanical behaviour and tendency for bacterial adhesion. For all materials, the surface roughness, hydrophobicity, zeta potential, tensile properties, hardness and CIE color parameters were measured. We found that foamed polymeric materials have higher roughness, higher hydrophobicity, lower Young's modulus, lower maximum tensile strength and lower hardness than solid materials. Bacterial adhesion test measurements based on observation by scanning electron microscopy show much a lower adhesion extent of on solid materials than on foamed materials. The measured biophysical properties could be the key data for users to select the optimal materials.

References

Filipovic U, Dahmane R, Ghannouchi S, Zore A, Bohinc K . Bacterial adhesion on orthopedic implants. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2020; 283:102228. DOI: 10.1016/j.cis.2020.102228. View

Kozmos M, Virant P, Rojko F, Abram A, Rudolf R, Raspor P . Bacterial Adhesion of to Dental Material Surfaces. Molecules. 2021; 26(4). PMC: 7926644. DOI: 10.3390/molecules26041152. View

McKee P, Rivard A . Biopsychosocial approach to orthotic intervention. J Hand Ther. 2010; 24(2):155-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.jht.2010.08.001. View

Goncalves F, Correia P, Silva S, Almeida-Aguiar C . Evaluation of antimicrobial properties of cork. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2015; 363(3). DOI: 10.1093/femsle/fnv231. View

Ozkocak I, Hekim M, Gokturk H, Adem K, Comert O . The assessment of different bleaching agents' efficiency on discoloured teeth using image-processing methods. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2020; 31:101901. DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2020.101901. View

Dalton H, March P . Molecular genetics of bacterial attachment and biofouling. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 1998; 9(3):252-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0958-1669(98)80055-4. View

Katsikogianni M, Missirlis Y . 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. DOI: 10.22203/ecm.v008a05. View

An Y, Friedman R . Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998; 43(3):338-48. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(199823)43:3<338::aid-jbm16>3.0.co;2-b. View

Llewelyn G, Rees A, Griffiths C, Jacobi M . A Design of Experiment Approach for Surface Roughness Comparisons of Foam Injection-Moulding Methods. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(10). PMC: 7287706. DOI: 10.3390/ma13102358. View

10.

Zore A, Bezek K, Jevsnik M, Abram A, Runko V, Sliskovic I . Bacterial adhesion rate on food grade ceramics and Teflon as kitchen worktop surfaces. Int J Food Microbiol. 2020; 332:108764. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108764. View

11.

Grice E, Segre J . The skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011; 9(4):244-53. PMC: 3535073. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro2537. View

12.

Amjadi M, Fatemi A . Tensile Behavior of High-Density Polyethylene Including the Effects of Processing Technique, Thickness, Temperature, and Strain Rate. Polymers (Basel). 2020; 12(9). PMC: 7564066. DOI: 10.3390/polym12091857. View

13.

Boks N, Norde W, van der Mei H, Busscher H . Forces involved in bacterial adhesion to hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces. Microbiology (Reading). 2008; 154(Pt 10):3122-3133. DOI: 10.1099/mic.0.2008/018622-0. View

14.

Rumianek P, Dobosz T, Nowak R, Dziewit P, Arominski A . Static Mechanical Properties of Expanded Polypropylene Crushable Foam. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(2). PMC: 7825443. DOI: 10.3390/ma14020249. View

15.

Schwibbert K, Menzel F, Epperlein N, Bonse J, Kruger J . Bacterial Adhesion on Femtosecond Laser-Modified Polyethylene. Materials (Basel). 2019; 12(19). PMC: 6804235. DOI: 10.3390/ma12193107. View

16.

Oliveira W, Silva P, Silva R, Silva G, Machado G, Coelho L . Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis infections on implants. J Hosp Infect. 2017; 98(2):111-117. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2017.11.008. View

17.

Coates R, Moran J, Horsburgh M . Staphylococci: colonizers and pathogens of human skin. Future Microbiol. 2013; 9(1):75-91. DOI: 10.2217/fmb.13.145. View

18.

Rimondini L, Fini M, Giardino R . The microbial infection of biomaterials: A challenge for clinicians and researchers. A short review. J Appl Biomater Biomech. 2010; 3(1):1-10. View

19.

Ly B, Dyer E, Feig J, Chien A, Del Bino S . Research Techniques Made Simple: Cutaneous Colorimetry: A Reliable Technique for Objective Skin Color Measurement. J Invest Dermatol. 2019; 140(1):3-12.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2019.11.003. View

20.

Iizuka M, Goto R, Siegkas P, Simpson B, Mansfield N . Large Deformation Finite Element Analyses for 3D X-ray CT Scanned Microscopic Structures of Polyurethane Foams. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(4). PMC: 7922925. DOI: 10.3390/ma14040949. View