Next Article in Journal
Rapid Prototyping of 3D-Printed AgNPs- and Nano-TiO2-Embedded Hydrogels as Novel Devices with Multiresponsive Antimicrobial Capability in Wound Healing
Next Article in Special Issue
Periprosthetic Joint Infection Diagnosis: A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
Purification, Conformational Analysis and Cytotoxic Activities of Host-Defense Peptides from the Giant Gladiator Treefrog Boana boans (Hylidae: Hylinae)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/antibiotics12071103
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Νanomaterial-Loaded Polymer Coating Prevents the In Vitro Growth of Candida albicans Biofilms on Silicone Biomaterials

by
Alexios Tsikopoulos
1,*,
Konstantinos Tsikopoulos
1,
Gabriele Meroni
2,
Christoforos Gravalidis
3,
Prodromos Soukouroglou
4,
Athanasios Chatzimoschou
5,
Lorenzo Drago
6,
Stefanos Triaridis
7 and
Paraskevi Papaioannidou
1
1
1st Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
One Health Unit, Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy
3
Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
4
Laboratory of Microbiology, Hippokration Hospital, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece
5
Lab of Infectious Diseases, Hippokration Hospital, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece
6
Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology & Microbiome, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, School of Medicine, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy
7
1st Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, AHEPA General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(7), 1103; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071103
Submission received: 8 May 2023 / Revised: 18 June 2023 / Accepted: 20 June 2023 / Published: 25 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue State-of-the-Art in Antimicrobial Research in Greece)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Early failure of silicone voice prostheses resulting from fungal colonization and biofilm formation poses a major concern in modern ear nose throat surgery. Therefore, developing new infection prevention techniques to prolong those implants’ survivorship is crucial. We designed an in vitro laboratory study to include nanomaterial-enhanced polymer coating with a plasma spraying technique against Candida albicans growth to address this issue. The anti-biofilm effects of high- and low-dose Al2O3 nanowire and TiO2 nanoparticle coatings were studied either alone or in conjunction with each other using checkerboard testing. It was demonstrated that both nanomaterials were capable of preventing fungal biofilm formation regardless of the anti-fungal agent concentration (median absorbance for high-dose Al2O3-enhanced polymer coating was 0.176 [IQR = 0.207] versus control absorbance of 0.805 [IQR = 0.381], p = 0.003 [98% biofilm reduction]; median absorbance for high-dose TiO2-enhanced polymer coating was 0.186 [IQR = 0.024] versus control absorbance of 0.766 [IQR = 0.458], p < 0.001 [93% biofilm reduction]). Furthermore, synergy was revealed when the Bliss model was applied. According to the findings of this work, it seems that simultaneous consideration of Al2O3 and TiO2 could further increase the existing antibiofilm potential of these nanomaterials and decrease the likelihood of localized toxicity.

1. Introduction

Laryngeal cancer poses a significant health and social burden with an average of 3.28 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per year [1]. Regrettably, approximately 60% of newly diagnosed patients are classified as stages III or IV (i.e., advanced disease) [2]. Of note, the standard treatment for advanced laryngeal cancer includes a total laryngectomy (TL) combined with radiotherapy (RT) [3]. One of the main sequelae of TL is voice loss, which can be addressed with the insertion of a silicone voice prosthesis into a surgically created tracheoesophageal fistula [4,5]. On that occasion, the material of choice is silicone rubber because of its excellent mechanical and molding properties [6]. However, the hydrophobicity of silicone rubber surfaces [7] in conjunction with the continuous exposure to saliva, food, drinks, and oropharyngeal microflora [8] contribute to rapid microbial colonization of the prosthesis [9] and subsequent biofilm formation [10], thus, resulting in the malfunctioning of this medical device. Therefore, achieving long-term voice restoration is challenging not only because the mode of communication becomes different after TL but also because of the frequent prosthesis replacements secondary to localized infections [10].
From a pathophysiological perspective, it is undeniable that biofilm formation is the primary cause of implant-associated infections [11,12]. In particular, biofilms are complex 3D structures that feature microorganism communities enclosed in a self-synthesized matrix of exopolymeric substances [13]. Those structures serve as barriers to the diffusion of antimicrobial compounds inside the biofilm [14,15]. As a result, biofilms are remarkably resistant not only to antifungal chemotherapy but also to the immune response itself. Thus, inhibiting bacterial adhesion is often regarded as the most critical step in preventing implant-associated infection.
Among the different microorganisms that can easily colonize silicone vocal implants, fungal species are the most common culprits, with a prevalence of 72.9% [11]. It is underlined that the predominant yeasts genera implicated in biofilm formation are Candida strains, including but not limited to Candida albicans, which is an opportunistic pathogen able to generate not only superficial but also deep-seated infections in immunocompromised patients [16]. From a clinical viewpoint, early signs of biofilm formation in the setting of a vocal implant include escape/leakage of esophageal contents, increased airflow resistance, and thickening of the walls. Usually, the above signs lead to the replacement of an indwelling voice prosthesis [14], thereby limiting its survivorship to 4–6 months [17]. On top of that, the consequences of device infection are not limited to the implant’s viability only, as established biofilms can stimulate an inflammatory response and formation of granulation tissue, which necessitates further surgical interventions [14,17,18].
In the last few decades, various anti-biofilm methods have been described to prolong the device’s lifespan. However, implementing antimycotic or antibiotic agents [19] appears inappropriate given the high risk of drug resistance development [20]. For instance, it has been evidenced that fungi’s metabolism and physiology make them notoriously resistant to chemotherapy [21]. What is more, with the required antifungal doses being up to 1000-times higher [22] than those of the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of standard chemotherapeutic agents, eradication of established Candida albicans biofilms with anti-fungal medication appears to be impossible in clinical practice [19,20,21,22,23]. Therefore, new biofilm prevention techniques are required to increase the durability of those devices and the quality of life for the patients.
To ensure the sustained release of antifungal agents in addition to passive protection stemming from implant surface modification, a combination of active and passive coating could be a viable option taking into account the excellent track record of this modality against fungal-induced infections reported in earlier literature [14]. Implementing nanomaterials (i.e., ultrafine particles made of biocompatible materials) as active coating components appears as a promising avenue to explore, as they tend to enhance implant properties advantageously [24]. Therefore, in the present study, we sought to assess the prevention potential of TiO2 nanoparticle and Al2O3 nanowire coating against C. albicans biofilms by using an in vitro model of infection with silicon disks simulating voice prostheses.

2. Methods

A clinical strain of C. albicans was isolated from a silicon catheter and identification was performed with the Vitek® 2 device (bioMerieux, Paris, France). The microbiological experiments were conducted in Hippokration Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece (IRB 22049/6-5-2022) and the purely pharmacological investigations were carried out in the 1st Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Science, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece. In addition, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) studies were conducted at the Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.

2.1. Biomaterials

Medical-grade silicon sheets were purchased from the commercial industry. Subsequently, disks measuring 6 mm (diameter) by 0.5 mm (thickness) were derived from silicone sheets and sterilized by autoclaving at 121 °C for 15 min. For reproducibility reasons, disks were measured with analytical balance before and after the coating application. The median increase in disk weight was found to be 2.82 mg (IQR 1.25).

2.2. MIC Determination

The present study determined minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC50) using a broth microdilution assay in line with the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines [25]. MIC was defined as the lowest concentration of the antifungal agent that did not allow for C. albicans growth. In brief, a suspension of C. albicans was recovered from Sabouraud agar plates (Millipore, Paris, France) (Supplemental file S1) to an optical density of 0.7 McFarland (approximately 1.5 × 108 colony-forming units [CFU]/mL) and successively inoculated to a final concentration of 105 CFU/mL in a 96-well microplate containing serial twofold dilutions of the testing molecules. MIC values, corresponding to the lowest concentration exhibiting no visible fungal growth, were read after 48 h of aerobic incubation at 37 °C. The effects of the following compounds were evaluated: (1) TiO2 nanoparticles (Nanografi, Ankara, Turkey); (2) Al2O3 nanowires (diam. × L 2–6 nm × 200–400 nm Sigma Aldrich); (3) Fluconazole (Braun, Melsungen, Germany); Amphotericin B (Pharmazac A.Ε., Athens, Greece). Experiments were conducted in triplicates (technical repetitions) to ensure reliability in the results.

2.3. Mature Biofilm Production and Minimum Biofilm Inhibitory Concentration (MBIC) Determination

First, we verified C. albicans’s ability to produce mature biofilm by staining the poly-saccharide structure of the extracellular matrix of biofilms with safranin. More precisely, mature biofilms were mechanically rinsed with PBS to remove the free-floating microorganisms. Biofilms were then stained with 200 μL of 0.1% safranin for 5 min, rinsed with water, and after that, the absorbance was spectrophotometrically measured at 492 nm (EpochTM BioTek, Winooski, VT, USA). After carrying out the above experiment, we could confirm that the clinical C. albicans isolates we used were strong biofilm producers.

2.4. Scanning Electron Microscopy and Coating Assessment

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was implemented (FESEM-JSM-7610 Fplus Thermal, Analytical FE SEM, Japan, Tokyo) with the samples being mounted on bronze substrates with an adhesive double-sided carbon tape. For SEM observations, the above samples were coated with carbon, having an average thickness of 200 Å, using a vacuum evaporator JEOL 4X. In regards to the coating assessment, energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy was performed and results were graphically presented.

2.5. Simultaneous Exposure of Biofilms and Planktonic Cells to Al2O3 and TiO2

Mature biofilms and planktonic cells were incubated separately in a checkerboard format for 24 h at 37 °C in RPMI medium (control) or with serially 2-fold-diluted concentrations of TiO2 ranging from 0.015 to 32 mg/L and of Al2O3 ranging from 64 to 4096 mg/L. The metabolic activity of the biofilm and planktonic cells was then measured using the XTT assay. Biofilm MICs in the presence of different concentrations of Al2O3 and TiO2 alone or in combination were determined.

2.6. Synergy Assessment between Al2O3 and TiO2

The synergistic or antagonistic effects between Al2O3 and TiO2 were assessed in line with Bliss’s independence model [26]. For credibility reasons, assays were carried out in 6 replicates on different days. To determine the expected theoretical percentage of growth (Eind) an agent-free control was used as a reference. Ultimately, the effect of the combination of two agents was calculated with the following equation: Eind = EA × EB, with EA and EB representing the experimental growth percentages when each agent acts alone. More specifically, for each independent replicate experiment, for each combination of x mg/L of agent A with y mg/L of agent B, the observed percentage of growth (Eobs) was subtracted from Eind. When the mean ΔΕ (ΔΕ = Eind − Eobs) was positive and its 95% confidence interval (CI) did not include 0, significant synergy was claimed for that specific combination of agent A with agent B. When the mean ΔΕ was negative without its CI overlapping 0, statistically significant antagonism was claimed. In any other case, indifference was concluded.

2.7. Coating Technique

First of all, we note that low- and high-Al2O3 and TiO2 concentrations were defined as 4× and 16× MIC. For polymer coating, Resomer® (Sigma-Aldrich, Milan, Italy) was utilized. To achieve an even distribution of the coating components, an airbrush spray-coating technique was implemented, which featured an appropriate nozzle to substrate a distance of 20 cm, a suitable nitrogen pressure of 1 bar, and a continuous spraying time of 60 s. First, the substrates were placed in the designated fixed and planar position, and subsequently, the solution was loaded into the reservoir to enable spraying. Particular attention was paid when positioning the airbrush, as a completely vertical orientation allowed the formation of a spraying cone with a radius of ~60 mm. The ejected droplets were then collected and merged over the entire substrate, thus, forming a continuous wet film. The resulting films were left to dry freely in the air without thermal annealing. For reproducibility reasons, a pictorial presentation of our unique coating technique is presented in Supplemental file S2.
In terms of the coating gel composition, nanoparticles were diluted in 2 mL of Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). Then, 10 mL of 90% alcohol was added. Last, 8 mL of water (i.e., for injectable preparation) were added to reach a total of 20 mL of sprayable gel. In addition, coating thickness was quantified by using SEM.

2.8. Colorimetric Assessment

Measurement of biofilm or planktonic cell metabolic activities was performed using the XTT metabolic-reduction assay. Briefly, after incubation for 48 h, the plates were centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 30 min. After centrifugation, PBS containing 0.25 mg/mL XTT and 40 μg/mL coenzyme Q0 was added. After incubation at 37 °C for 1 h, 100 μL was transferred to a new plate and the optical density (OD) was assessed spectrophotometrically. An automated plate reader measured absorbance at 450 nm. Percent metabolic activity was calculated with the following equation: (1 − X/C) × 100, where X is the OD of agent-containing wells and C is the OD of control wells with fungi only.

2.9. Statistical Analysis and Interpretation of the Results

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 29.0 software (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA), with the dependent variables being absorbance measurements and the independent ones being the intervention groups. After determining the non-normality of our data using normality and non-normality tests (Shapiro–Wilk, D’Agostino and Pearson test and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test), the comparison of medians between two and multiple groups were achieved using non-parametric tests, including Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis, respectively. The sample size was calculated in advance of the biofilm experiments according to published guidelines governing in vitro research [27]. The calculation was based on the primary outcome of the present study, which featured a desired biofilm prevention varying between 80 and 100% [28]. With the statistical power set at 0.8 and a and b errors at 5% and 20%, respectively, a minimum of 8 disks per testing condition were determined. Of note, Prism 9 (GraphPad Software, Inc, La Jolla, CA, USA) software was utilized for graph generation and a p-value of < 0.05 indicated significance.

2.10. Interpretation of the Results

Statistical and clinical relevance were taken into consideration in order to interpret our results clinically. In particular, for a comparison to be clinically relevant, the minimum biofilm prevention threshold of 80% was required to be achieved.

3. Results

Among the tested antifungal agents, fluconazole was the most effective against C. albicans planktonic form with an MIC of 0.25 μg/mL (Table 1). For the remainder of the antifungal drugs that we tested, Amphotericin MIC was found to be 0.5 μg/mL. For the biofilm assay, Al2O3 and fluconazole were equally effective at preventing an implant infection in vitro (Table 1).

3.1. Synergy Assessment

Effect of simultaneous combination of antifungal treatment on biofilms or planktonic cells.
Simultaneous treatment of C. albicans biofilms with TiO2 (0.03 to 0.5 mg/L) and Al2O3 (128 to 512 mg/L) resulted in synergistic interaction (mean ΔΕ value of significant interactions, 24% (range, 18% to 30%) (Figure 1 and Table 2). In contrast, all combinations of TiO2 and Al2O3 studied exhibited indifferent interactions against planktonic cells (Supplemental file S3).

3.2. Impact of Al2O3- and TiO2- Resomer® Coating on Candida Biofilm Growth

Before studying the results of nanomaterial-impregnated coating on biofilm growth, the roughness of silicone implants was measured, and coating thickness was quantified. In more detail, the roughness was found to be 3.4 Ra with a peak-to-valley height measuring 35.9 nm (Figure 2a,b). In addition, the coating thickness was found to be 8.156 μm (Figure 3).
After successful coating with 4 × MIC and 16 × MIC for each of the titanium and aluminum implants (Figure 4), disks were placed in 96-well plates and inoculation took place. Following sufficient incubation, disk preparation with mechanical rinsing, vortexing, and sonication, biofilms were appropriately studied, and statistically significant differences were demonstrated relative to positive controls (p < 0.05) (Table 3).
For the between-group analyses, we note that there was no statistically significant difference when we compared absorbance between the intervention groups that featured a combined active and passive coating (i.e., low-dose TiO2 vs. high-dose TiO2 vs. low-dose Al2O3 vs. high-dose Al2O3) (p = 0.14) (Figure 5). More specifically, no statistical significance was revealed when low-dose TiO2 coating was assessed against high-dose TiO2 (p = 0.309). Likewise, no difference was demonstrated between low-dose Al2O3 and high-dose Al2O3 (p = 0.15). When compared to polymer coating alone, the nanomaterial-enhanced coating did not yield any statistically significant absorption differences (p > 0.05).

3.3. Coating Assessment and Characterization Data

As per energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy evaluation, the coating was successfully assessed not only for TiO2 nanoparticles but also for Al2O3 nanowires (Figure 6a,b).

4. Discussion

In the present in vitro study, we demonstrated that not only Al2O3 nanowire—enhanced but also TiO2 nanoparticle—impregnated Resomer® coatings could prevent C. albicans growth in the presence of silicone disks simulating ear nose throat implants. Our finding is in keeping with earlier meta-analyses of in vitro literature supporting the fact that combined passive and active coating yields optimal infection-related outcomes for yeast infections [14]. Moreover, the synergy between the above biomaterials was documented when we simultaneously assessed the combined efficacy of those antifungal agents with checkerboard testing. Nevertheless, these promising findings should be interpreted with caution due to the fact that there are differences between in vitro and in vivo behavior, and the results of in vitro studies also need experimental studies before being clinically translated.
Regarding the efficacy of Resomer®-supplemented coating, a dose-dependent biofilm inhibition was recorded when we loaded our polymer coating with Al2O3 nanowires and TiO2 nanoparticles. To elaborate further, we note that although all tested concentrations exceeded the clinically meaningful biofilm inhibition threshold, high-dose Al2O3 coating could inhibit more than 95% of C. albicans biofilm formation. However, using large concentrations of nanomaterials may result in local and/or systemic toxicity, which in turn raises safety issues. To mitigate this toxicity risk, combining nanomaterials could be a great avenue to explore. Interestingly enough, indifference was demonstrated when we combined TiO2 and Al2O3 against the planktonic form of C. albicans. By contrast, the synergy between the above nanomaterials was revealed when the Bliss model was implemented for biofilm form. Therefore, we advocate that a combination of between Al2O3 nanowire- and TiO2 nanoparticle-coating may yield better silicone device protection while maintaining anti-fungal agents’ concentrations at lower levels. Likewise, recent animal research has suggested that synergistic antibacterial effects against Staphylococcus aureus are exhibited when metallic nanomaterials are combined [29].

4.1. Toxicity Concerns

It should be mentioned that nanotoxicity concerns have been raised by earlier authors, who concluded that nanoparticles are potentially dangerous for human beings depending on their nature, size, surface area, shape, aspect ratio, crystallinity, dissolution, and agglomeration [30,31]. When it comes to assessing toxicity, we wish to underline that nanowire coating is potentially more advantageous than its nanoparticle counterpart. This is because recent in vitro evidence has suggested that utilizing Al2O3 nanowires results in significantly less toxicity compared to using Al2O3 nanoparticles [30,32]. On top of that, recent animal evidence has shown that bone toxicity is proportional to increased Al2O3 nanomaterial concentrations in coatings. Therefore, we suggest that clinicians consider the payoff between toxicity and cost when selecting nanomaterials for clinical use.

4.2. Coating Remarks

Al2O3 nanowires and TiO2 nanoparticles were added to the Resomer® first because they had never been studied in this environment before in the literature. Moreover, although fluconazole was equally effective at preventing Candida biofilm growth, this drug was not considered a coating option due to the potential for resistance development.
Furthermore, we wish to highlight the importance of the coating technique when it comes to standardizing the application of bioresorbable material on silicone implants. To be more exact, we claim that ensuring that even distribution of coating components on the biomaterials provides more predictable protection against fungal biofilm growth. To reflect on the above, we verified the formation of a continuous coating layer by using SEM. The present study applied the coating on a smooth silicon surface as the Ra value was less than 10 (ISO 14607, Corrected version 2018-08). More importantly, a long-lasting coating effect on silicone implants was recorded, providing sustained protection against fungal growth.

4.3. Coating Considerations

Recently published evidence has suggested that coating is a complex phenomenon which cannot be successfully determined using a single statistical test [33]. In other words, the bonding strength is correlated not only with surface roughness but also with chemical bonds, surface cleanliness, and mechanical factors. However, it has been postulated that achieving a desired controlled surface roughness can effectively decrease the shear forces exerted on the coating components, thus, enhancing its adhesion properties [34].

4.4. Study Limitations and Implications for Future Research

We recognize that the present in vitro study has a few limitations. First, although the present in vitro investigation results were promising, we wish to draw the readers’ attention to the fact that unwarranted extrapolations to human biology should be avoided. In other words, a stepwise research approach is required to confirm results in living organisms, including conducting a small animal model study. This may be followed by large animal model preclinical investigations provided that the clinical results remain satisfactory. Additionally, we wish to underline that there are significant differences between fungal growth in the lab setting compared to real-life. Therefore, we claim that future research could also focus on ex vivo models of infection, as those models appear to be advantageous over their in vitro counterparts given the fact they maintain crucial biological factors from the hosts [33,35].
Second, although we observed a long-lasting effect of Resomer® coating in the lab over the course of two weeks, we advocate that local mechanical factors may affect its characteristics in a complex in vivo environment. To elaborate, continuous exposure of coated silicone implants to food and saliva may harm coating integrity and longevity in the pharyngeal environment. Future studies could concentrate on more durable implant surface finishing techniques to ensure long-term device protection from fungi. Alternatively, in order to avoid costly surface modifications, the application of an additional layer above the one of PDLLA may yield a more durable effect while maintaining the cost at low levels. On top of that, it should be underlined that determining the adhesion properties of the suggested coating method is important in clinical settings, and, therefore, conducting further investigation on this matter should be prioritized by future authors in this field.
Third, given the synergistic effects against Candida biofilm growth, further research is needed to identify the optimal combination between TiO2 nanoparticle and Al2O3 nanowire-coating to not only to optimize the infection prevention potential but also minimize side effects and cytotoxicity. For a thorough evaluation, not only localized but also systemic toxicity (that is, impact on renal, liver, and lung cells) should be investigated in future papers.

5. Conclusions

In this in vitro study, we investigated the antifungal properties of TiO2 nanoparticles and Al2O3 nanowires against Candida albicans and promising results were demonstrated regardless of the coating concentration we implemented. In particular, a standalone application of TiO2 nanoparticle and Al2O3 nanowire Resomer® coatings yielded greater than 85% reduction of Candida albicans biofilm growth on silicone disks in our in vitro model of infection. Moreover, the synergy between the mentioned nanomaterials was shown, which could be highly beneficial when considering coatings consisting of multiple components. However, given the novelty of our findings, further research is needed to finetune the coating characteristics and verify results in animal infection models.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics12071103/s1, Supplemental file S1: Candida albicans growth on a Sabouraud agar plate. Supplemental file S2: Pictorial presentation of spraying device to achieve even coating of nanomaterial coating of silicon implants. Supplemental file S3: No synergy is demonstrated between Al2O3 and TiO2 nanomaterials against Candida albicans.

Author Contributions

A.T. and K.T.: Methodology, experiment execution and writing the original draft. L.D.: Conceptualization and senior supervision. P.P. and S.T.: Supervision; A.C.: Data curation and experiment execution; P.S.; Methodological contribution and editing of the paper; C.G.: Methodological contribution and Software management; G.M.: Validation and experiment execution, editing of the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the World Association against Infection in Orthopaedics and Trauma WAIOT.

Institutional Review Board Statement

IRB approval was obtained from the Hippokration Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece (IRB 22049/6-5-2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot be shared at this time due to technical or time limitations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nocini, R.; Molteni, G.; Mattiuzzi, C.; Lippi, G. Updates on larynx cancer epidemiology. Chin. J. Cancer Res. 2020, 32, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Groome, P.A.; O’Sullivan, B.; Irish, J.C.; Rothwell, D.M.; Schulze, K.; Warde, P.R.; Schneider, K.M.; MacKenzie, R.G.; Hodson, D.I.; Hammond, J.A.; et al. Management and Outcome Differences in Supraglottic Cancer Between Ontario, Canada, and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Areas of the United States. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003, 21, 496–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Bozec, A.; Culié, D.; Poissonnet, G.; Dassonville, O. Current Role of Total Laryngectomy in the Era of Organ Preservation. Cancers 2020, 12, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Souza, F.G.R.; Santos, I.C.; Bergmann, A.; Thuler, L.C.S.; Freitas, A.S.; Freitas, E.Q.; Dias, F.L. Quality of life after total laryngectomy: Impact of different vocal rehabilitation methods in a middle income country. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2020, 18, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Schuster, M.; Lohscheller, J.; Kummer, P.; Hoppe, U.; Eysholdt, U.; Rosanowski, F. Quality of Life in Laryngectomees after Prosthetic Voice Restoration. Folia Phoniatr. Logop. 2003, 55, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Balm, A.; Brekel, M.V.D.; Tan, I.; Hilgers, F. The indwelling voice prosthesis for speech rehabilitation after total laryngectomy: A safe approach. Otolaryngol. Pol. 2011, 65, 402–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, H.; Brook, M.A.; Sheardown, H. Silicone elastomers for reduced protein adsorption. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 2273–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Neu, T.; Verkerke, G.; Herrmann, I.; Schutte, H.; Mei, H.V.; Busscher, H. Microflora on explanted silicone rubber voice prostheses: Taxonomy, hydrophobicity and electrophoretic mobility. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1994, 76, 521–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Neu, T.; Van der Mei, H.; Busscher, H.; Dijk, F.; Verkerke, G. Biodeterioration of medical-grade silicone rubber used for voice prostheses: A SEM study. Biomaterials 1993, 14, 459–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Attieh, A.Y.; Searl, J.; Shahaltough, N.H.; Wreikat, M.M.; Lundy, D.S. Voice restoration following total laryngectomy by tracheoesophageal prosthesis: Effect on patients’ quality of life and voice handicap in Jordan. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2008, 6, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Van Weissenbruch, R.; Albers, F.W.J.; Bouckaert, S.; Nelis, H.J.; Criel, G.; Remon, J.P.; Sulter, A.M. Deterioration of the Provox™ Silicone Tracheoesophageal Voice Prosthesis: Microbial Aspects and Structural Changes. Acta Otolaryngol. 1997, 117, 452–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hetrick, E.M.; Schoenfisch, M.H. Reducing implant-related infections: Active release strategies. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2006, 35, 780–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nett, J.; Andes, D. Candida albicans biofilm development, modeling a host–pathogen interaction. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2006, 9, 340–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Tsikopoulos, A.; Petinaki, E.; Festas, C.; Tsikopoulos, K.; Meroni, G.; Drago, L.; Skoulakis, C. In vitro Inhibition of Biofilm Formation on Silicon Rubber Voice Prosthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. ORL J. Otorhinolaryngol. Relat. Spec. 2022, 84, 10–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kucharíková, S.; Neirinck, B.; Sharma, N.; Vleugels, J.; Lagrou, K.; Van Dijck, P. In vivo Candida glabrata biofilm development on foreign bodies in a rat subcutaneous model. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2015, 70, 846–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Carolus, H.; Van Dyck, K.; Van Dijck, P. Candida albicans and Staphylococcus Species: A Threatening Twosome. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. de Coul, B.M.R.O.; Hilgers, F.J.M.; Balm, A.J.M.; Tan, I.B.; Hoogen, F.J.A.V.D.; van Tinteren, H. A Decade of Postlaryngectomy Vocal Rehabilitation in 318 Patients. Arch. Otolaryngol. Neck Surg. 2000, 126, 1320–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Rodrigues, L.; Banat, I.M.; Teixeira, J.; Oliveira, R. Biosurfactants: Potential applications in medicine. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2006, 57, 609–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Elving, G.J.; van der Mei, H.C.; van Weissenbruch, R.M.; Albers, F.W.M.; Busscher, H.J. Effect of antifungal agents on indwelling voice prosthetic biofilms. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2000, 8, 165–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Denning, D. Can we prevent azole resistance in fungi? Lancet 1995, 346, 454–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chen, J.; Qin, G.; Wang, J.; Yu, J.; Shen, B.; Li, S.; Ren, Y.; Zuo, L.; Shen, W.; Das, B. One-step fabrication of sub-10-nm plasmonic nanogaps for reliable SERS sensing of microorganisms. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2013, 44, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aslam, S. Effect of antibacterials on biofilms. Am. J. Infect. Control 2008, 36, S175.e9–S175.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Elving, G.J.; van der Mei, H.C.; van Weissenbruch, R.; Busscher, H.J.; Albers, F.W.J. Comparison of the microbial composition of voice prosthesis biofilms from patients requiring frequent versus infrequent replacement. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2002, 111, 200–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lotfipour, F.; Abdollahi, S.; Jelvehgari, M.; Valizadeh, H.; Hassan, M.; Milani, M. Study of Antimicrobial Effects of Vancomycin Loaded PLGA Nanoparticles Against Enterococcus Clinical Isolates. Drug Res. 2014, 64, 348–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Quality Manual, 3rd ed.; Wayne, P.A., Ed.; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhao, W.; Sachsenmeier, K.; Zhang, L.; Sult, E.; Hollingsworth, R.E.; Yang, H. A New Bliss Independence Model to Analyze Drug Combination Data. SLAS Discov. Adv. Sci. Drug Discov. 2014, 19, 817–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Faggion, C.M. Guidelines for Reporting Pre-clinical In Vitro Studies on Dental Materials. J. Èvid. Based Dent. Pract. 2012, 12, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Opperman, T.J.; Kwasny, S.M.; Williams, J.D.; Khan, A.R.; Peet, N.P.; Moir, D.T.; Bowlin, T.L. Aryl Rhodanines Specifically Inhibit Staphylococcal and Enterococcal Biofilm Formation. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009, 53, 4357–4367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Bankier, C.; Matharu, R.K.; Cheong, Y.K.; Ren, G.G.; Cloutman-Green, E.; Ciric, L. Synergistic Antibacterial Effects of Metallic Nanoparticle Combinations. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 16074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Bilyy, R.; Paryzhak, S.; Turcheniuk, K.; Dumych, T.; Barras, A.; Boukherroub, R.; Wang, F.; Yushin, G.; Szunerits, S. Aluminum oxide nanowires as safe and effective adjuvants for next-generation vaccines. Mater. Today 2019, 22, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Egbuna, C.; Parmar, V.K.; Jeevanandam, J.; Ezzat, S.M.; Patrick-Iwuanyanwu, K.C.; Adetunji, C.O.; Khan, J.; Onyeike, E.N.; Uche, C.Z.; Akram, M.; et al. Toxicity of Nanoparticles in Biomedical Application: Nanotoxicology. J. Toxicol. 2021, 2021, 9954443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hashimoto, M.; Sasaki, J.-I.; Imazato, S. Investigation of the cytotoxicity of aluminum oxide nanoparticles and nanowires and their localization in L929 fibroblasts and RAW264 macrophages. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2016, 104, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Croll, S. Surface roughness profile and its effect on coating adhesion and corrosion protection: A review. Prog. Org. Coat. 2020, 148, 105847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Balabanava, N.; Wierzbicki, R.; Zielecka, M.; Rymuza, Z. Effect of roughness on adhesion of polymeric coatings used for microgrippers. Microelectron. Eng. 2007, 84, 1227–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chuang-Smith, O.N.; Wells, C.L.; Henry-Stanley, M.J.; Dunny, G.M. Acceleration of Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm Formation by Aggregation Substance Expression in an Ex Vivo Model of Cardiac Valve Colonization. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e15798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Antibiotics 12 01103 g001 550
Figure 1. Interaction surface plots obtained from analysis with the Bliss independence model of Al2O3-TiO2 interactions against biofilms of C. albicans. Plots represent combinations of Al2O3 and TiO2. The zero plane (ΔΕ = 0) represents indifferent interactions, whereas volumes above (ΔΕ > 0) and below (ΔΕ < 0) the zero plane suggest synergistic and antagonistic interactions, respectively.
Figure 1. Interaction surface plots obtained from analysis with the Bliss independence model of Al2O3-TiO2 interactions against biofilms of C. albicans. Plots represent combinations of Al2O3 and TiO2. The zero plane (ΔΕ = 0) represents indifferent interactions, whereas volumes above (ΔΕ > 0) and below (ΔΕ < 0) the zero plane suggest synergistic and antagonistic interactions, respectively.
Antibiotics 12 01103 g001
Antibiotics 12 01103 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) 2D and (b) 3D atomic force microscopy images of silicon disk surface with calculated roughness of 3.4 nm, respectively.
Figure 2. (a) 2D and (b) 3D atomic force microscopy images of silicon disk surface with calculated roughness of 3.4 nm, respectively.
Antibiotics 12 01103 g002
Antibiotics 12 01103 g003 550
Figure 3. SEM cross-sectional view demonstrating Resomer® coating 8.156 μm thick lying on the top of a silicon disk.
Figure 3. SEM cross-sectional view demonstrating Resomer® coating 8.156 μm thick lying on the top of a silicon disk.
Antibiotics 12 01103 g003
Antibiotics 12 01103 g004 550
Figure 4. SEM picture depicting Candida albicans biofilms (5–9 μm) in conjunction with Resomer® coating on a silicon disk.
Figure 4. SEM picture depicting Candida albicans biofilms (5–9 μm) in conjunction with Resomer® coating on a silicon disk.
Antibiotics 12 01103 g004
Antibiotics 12 01103 g005 550
Figure 5. Pictorial presentation of median XTT absorbance relative to actively coated Resomer® groups. No statistically significant difference between groups is demonstrated. MIC = Minimum Inhibitory Concentration; OD = Optical Density; XTT = XTT ([2,3-bis{2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl}-2H-tet- razolium-5-carboxanilide]).
Figure 5. Pictorial presentation of median XTT absorbance relative to actively coated Resomer® groups. No statistically significant difference between groups is demonstrated. MIC = Minimum Inhibitory Concentration; OD = Optical Density; XTT = XTT ([2,3-bis{2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl}-2H-tet- razolium-5-carboxanilide]).
Antibiotics 12 01103 g005
Antibiotics 12 01103 g006 550
Figure 6. (a) Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy for Al2O3 coating assessment on silicone disk. (b) Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy for TiO2 coating assessment on silicone disk.
Figure 6. (a) Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy for Al2O3 coating assessment on silicone disk. (b) Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy for TiO2 coating assessment on silicone disk.
Antibiotics 12 01103 g006
Table
Table 1. Inhibitory effects of anti-fungal agents against planktonic and biofilm forms of C. albicans.
Table 1. Inhibitory effects of anti-fungal agents against planktonic and biofilm forms of C. albicans.
Antifungal AgentMIC (μg/mL)MBIC (μg/mL)
TiO2 nanoparticles10244096
Al2O3 nanowires5122048
Fluconazole0.252048
MBIC = Minimum Biofilm Inhibitory Concentration; MIC = Minimum Inhibitory Concentration.
Table
Table 2. Synergistic effects between AlO3 and TiO2 against biofilm development as per Bliss’s model.
Table 2. Synergistic effects between AlO3 and TiO2 against biofilm development as per Bliss’s model.
Al2O3TiO2
00.015 mg/L0.03 mg/L0.06 mg/L0.25 mg/L0.50 mg/L1 mg/L4 mg/L8 mg/L16 mg/L32 mg/L
64 mg/LINDINDINDINDSYNINDINDINDINDIND
128 mg/LINDSYNSYNSYNSYNINDINDINDINDIND
256 mg/LSYNSYNSYNSYNSYNINDINDINDINDIND
512 mg/LSYNSYNSYNSYNSYNINDINDINDINDIND
1024 mg/LINDINDINDINDINDINDINDSYNSYNIND
2048 mg/LINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDIND
4096 mg/LINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDIND
SYN = Synergism; IND = Indifference.
Table
Table 3. Antibiofilm activity of Resomer® coating considered either alone or supplemented with nanomaterials.
Table 3. Antibiofilm activity of Resomer® coating considered either alone or supplemented with nanomaterials.
Treatment GroupMedian Absorbance (IQR)p Value% Biofilm Reduction
Intervention GroupBiofilm Control Group
High-dose Al2O3-enhanced polymer coating0.176 (0.207)0.805 (0.381)0.00398%
Low-dose Al2O3-enhanced polymer coating0.25 (0.161)0.805 (0.381)0.00287%
High-dose TiO2-enhanced polymer coating0.186 (0.024)0.766 (0.458)<0.00193%
Low-dose TiO2-enhanced polymer coating0.213 (0.152)0.766 (0.458)<0.00189%
Polymer coating alone0.246 (0.098)0.766 (0.458)<0.00184%
IQR = interquartile range; p < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. High-dose = 16 × MIC; Low-dose = 4 × MIC.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tsikopoulos, A.; Tsikopoulos, K.; Meroni, G.; Gravalidis, C.; Soukouroglou, P.; Chatzimoschou, A.; Drago, L.; Triaridis, S.; Papaioannidou, P. Νanomaterial-Loaded Polymer Coating Prevents the In Vitro Growth of Candida albicans Biofilms on Silicone Biomaterials. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071103

AMA Style

Tsikopoulos A, Tsikopoulos K, Meroni G, Gravalidis C, Soukouroglou P, Chatzimoschou A, Drago L, Triaridis S, Papaioannidou P. Νanomaterial-Loaded Polymer Coating Prevents the In Vitro Growth of Candida albicans Biofilms on Silicone Biomaterials. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(7):1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071103

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tsikopoulos, Alexios, Konstantinos Tsikopoulos, Gabriele Meroni, Christoforos Gravalidis, Prodromos Soukouroglou, Athanasios Chatzimoschou, Lorenzo Drago, Stefanos Triaridis, and Paraskevi Papaioannidou. 2023. "Νanomaterial-Loaded Polymer Coating Prevents the In Vitro Growth of Candida albicans Biofilms on Silicone Biomaterials" Antibiotics 12, no. 7: 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071103

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop