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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |