Cargando…

Comparison of Six Different Silicones In Vitro for Application as Glaucoma Drainage Device

Silicones are widely used in medical applications. In ophthalmology, glaucoma drainage devices are utilized if conservative therapies are not applicable or have failed. Long-term success of these devices is limited by failure to control intraocular pressure due to fibrous encapsulation. Therefore, d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Windhövel, Claudia, Harder, Lisa, Bach, Jan-Peter, Teske, Michael, Grabow, Niels, Eickner, Thomas, Hinze, Ulf, Chichkov, Boris, Nolte, Ingo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872920/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29495462
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma11030341
_version_ 1783309937535877120
author Windhövel, Claudia
Harder, Lisa
Bach, Jan-Peter
Teske, Michael
Grabow, Niels
Eickner, Thomas
Hinze, Ulf
Chichkov, Boris
Nolte, Ingo
author_facet Windhövel, Claudia
Harder, Lisa
Bach, Jan-Peter
Teske, Michael
Grabow, Niels
Eickner, Thomas
Hinze, Ulf
Chichkov, Boris
Nolte, Ingo
author_sort Windhövel, Claudia
collection PubMed
description Silicones are widely used in medical applications. In ophthalmology, glaucoma drainage devices are utilized if conservative therapies are not applicable or have failed. Long-term success of these devices is limited by failure to control intraocular pressure due to fibrous encapsulation. Therefore, different medical approved silicones were tested in vitro for cell adhesion, cell proliferation and viability of human Sclera (hSF) and human Tenon fibroblasts (hTF). The silicones were analysed also depending on the sample preparation according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The surface quality was characterized with environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) and water contact angle measurements. All silicones showed homogeneous smooth and hydrophobic surfaces. Cell adhesion was significantly reduced on all silicones compared to the negative control. Proliferation index and cell viability were not influenced much. For development of a new glaucoma drainage device, the silicones Silbione LSR 4330 and Silbione LSR 4350, in this study, with low cell counts for hTF and low proliferation indices for hSF, and silicone Silastic MDX4-4210, with low cell counts for hSF and low proliferation indices for hTF, have shown the best results in vitro. Due to the high cell adhesion shown on Silicone LSR 40, 40,026, this material is unsuitable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5872920
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58729202018-03-30 Comparison of Six Different Silicones In Vitro for Application as Glaucoma Drainage Device Windhövel, Claudia Harder, Lisa Bach, Jan-Peter Teske, Michael Grabow, Niels Eickner, Thomas Hinze, Ulf Chichkov, Boris Nolte, Ingo Materials (Basel) Article Silicones are widely used in medical applications. In ophthalmology, glaucoma drainage devices are utilized if conservative therapies are not applicable or have failed. Long-term success of these devices is limited by failure to control intraocular pressure due to fibrous encapsulation. Therefore, different medical approved silicones were tested in vitro for cell adhesion, cell proliferation and viability of human Sclera (hSF) and human Tenon fibroblasts (hTF). The silicones were analysed also depending on the sample preparation according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The surface quality was characterized with environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) and water contact angle measurements. All silicones showed homogeneous smooth and hydrophobic surfaces. Cell adhesion was significantly reduced on all silicones compared to the negative control. Proliferation index and cell viability were not influenced much. For development of a new glaucoma drainage device, the silicones Silbione LSR 4330 and Silbione LSR 4350, in this study, with low cell counts for hTF and low proliferation indices for hSF, and silicone Silastic MDX4-4210, with low cell counts for hSF and low proliferation indices for hTF, have shown the best results in vitro. Due to the high cell adhesion shown on Silicone LSR 40, 40,026, this material is unsuitable. MDPI 2018-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5872920/ /pubmed/29495462 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma11030341 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Windhövel, Claudia
Harder, Lisa
Bach, Jan-Peter
Teske, Michael
Grabow, Niels
Eickner, Thomas
Hinze, Ulf
Chichkov, Boris
Nolte, Ingo
Comparison of Six Different Silicones In Vitro for Application as Glaucoma Drainage Device
title Comparison of Six Different Silicones In Vitro for Application as Glaucoma Drainage Device
title_full Comparison of Six Different Silicones In Vitro for Application as Glaucoma Drainage Device
title_fullStr Comparison of Six Different Silicones In Vitro for Application as Glaucoma Drainage Device
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Six Different Silicones In Vitro for Application as Glaucoma Drainage Device
title_short Comparison of Six Different Silicones In Vitro for Application as Glaucoma Drainage Device
title_sort comparison of six different silicones in vitro for application as glaucoma drainage device
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872920/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29495462
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma11030341
work_keys_str_mv AT windhovelclaudia comparisonofsixdifferentsiliconesinvitroforapplicationasglaucomadrainagedevice
AT harderlisa comparisonofsixdifferentsiliconesinvitroforapplicationasglaucomadrainagedevice
AT bachjanpeter comparisonofsixdifferentsiliconesinvitroforapplicationasglaucomadrainagedevice
AT teskemichael comparisonofsixdifferentsiliconesinvitroforapplicationasglaucomadrainagedevice
AT grabowniels comparisonofsixdifferentsiliconesinvitroforapplicationasglaucomadrainagedevice
AT eicknerthomas comparisonofsixdifferentsiliconesinvitroforapplicationasglaucomadrainagedevice
AT hinzeulf comparisonofsixdifferentsiliconesinvitroforapplicationasglaucomadrainagedevice
AT chichkovboris comparisonofsixdifferentsiliconesinvitroforapplicationasglaucomadrainagedevice
AT nolteingo comparisonofsixdifferentsiliconesinvitroforapplicationasglaucomadrainagedevice