CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Dental Implant Techniques and OutcomesBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsSurface Treatment and Coatings

Cytotoxicity and antibacterial susceptibility assessment of a newly developed pectin–chitosan polyelectrolyte composite for dental implants

Open access
Alsharbaty, Mohammed Hussein M., Naji, Ghassan A., Ghani, Ban A., Schagerl, Michael, Khalil, Maha A., Ali, Sameh S.·2024·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-024-68020-7PMC PMC11266696
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Biopolymers such as chitosan and pectin are currently attracting significant attention because of their unique properties, which are valuable in the food industry and pharmaceutical applications. These properties include non-toxicity, compatibility with biological systems, natural decomposition ability, and structural adaptability. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of two different ratios of pectin–chitosan polyelectrolyte composite (PCPC) after applying them as a coating to commercially pure titanium (CpTi) substrates using electrospraying. The PCPC was studied in ratios of 1:2 and 1:3, while the control group consisted of CpTi substrates without any coating. The pull-off adhesion strength, cytotoxicity, and antibacterial susceptibility tests were utilized to evaluate the PCPC coatings. In order to determine whether the composite coating was the result of physical blending or chemical bonding, the topographic surface parameters were studied using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). PCPC (1:3) had the highest average cell viability of 93.42, 89.88, and 86.85% after 24, 48, and 72 h, respectively, as determined by the cytotoxicity assay, when compared to the other groups. According to the Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion method for testing antibacterial susceptibility, PCPC (1:3) showed the highest average diameter of the zone of inhibition, measuring 14.88, 14.43, and 11.03 mm after 24, 48, and 72 h of incubation, respectively. This difference was highly significant compared to Group 3 at all three time periods. PCPC (1:3) exhibited a significantly higher mean pull-off adhesion strength (521.6 psi) compared to PCPC (1:2), which revealed 419.5 psi. PCPC (1:3) coated substrates exhibited better surface roughness parameters compared to other groups based on the findings of the AFM. The FTIR measurement indicated that both PCPC groups exhibited a purely physical blending in the composite coating. Based on the extent of these successful in vitro experiments, PCPC (1:3) demonstrates its potential as an effective coating layer. Therefore, the findings of this study pave the way for using newly developed PCPC after electrospraying coating on CpTi for dental implants.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-024-68020-7

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Long-term assessments of chromosomal aberrations and oxidative DNA damage markers, such as 8-OHdG, are still lacking, despite being mandatory for surface coatings intended for lifelong dental implant applications.

    “In particular, long-term assessments of chromosomal aberrations and oxidative DNA damage markers, such as 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), are still lacking, despite being mandatory for surface coatings intended for lifelong dental implant applications.104,105”

    From Polydopamine-Based Biomaterials in Oral Medicine: Applications, Mechanisms, and Translational Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [105]

    The Methods (Cytotoxicity test; page unavailable) describe a short-term MTT cell-viability assay, and the Discussion (page unavailable) acknowledges limited testing and calls for further assessments. This supports a testing gap in this coating study, but the paper does not specifically discuss chromosomal aberrations or 8-OHdG, or say that long-term tests of those markers are mandatory for dental implant coatings. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Surface ζ-potential values of PDA coatings varied widely, ranging from −20 to −45 mV, which directly translated into more than a twofold variation in antibody immobilization capacity.

    “In parallel, surface ζ-potential values varied widely, ranging from −20 to −45 mV, which directly translated into more than a twofold variation in antibody immobilization capacity.”

    From Polydopamine-Based Biomaterials in Oral Medicine: Applications, Mechanisms, and Translational Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [105]

    The Results (AFM analysis; page unavailable) report surface roughness for pectin–chitosan-coated titanium, not ζ-potential or antibody immobilization. A search of our copy for PDA coatings, −20 to −45 mV, and antibody immobilization found no passage addressing the claimed measurements or their relationship. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Ellipsometric analysis of ten PDA coating batches prepared in the same laboratory at different time points revealed a relative standard deviation in coating thickness of up to 18%.

    “For example, ellipsometric analysis of ten PDA coating batches prepared in the same laboratory at different time points revealed a relative standard deviation (RSD) in coating thickness of up to 18%.”

    From Polydopamine-Based Biomaterials in Oral Medicine: Applications, Mechanisms, and Translational Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [105]

    The Analytical methods and FESEM and EDS analysis sections describe thickness measurements of pectin–chitosan coatings using FESEM (page unavailable). Searches for ellipsometry, PDA coating batches, and an 18% relative standard deviation found no passage addressing the claimed batch-to-batch result. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Available Ames test results (TA98/TA100 strains, with and without S9 metabolic activation) indicate that within a dose range of 50-5000 μg per plate, the number of revertant colonies did not exceed twice the spontaneous mutation rate.

    “Available Ames test results (TA98/TA100 strains, with and without S9 metabolic activation) indicate that within a dose range of 50–5000 µg per plate, the number of revertant colonies did not exceed twice the spontaneous mutation rate.”

    From Polydopamine-Based Biomaterials in Oral Medicine: Applications, Mechanisms, and Translational Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [105]

    The Material and methods sections describe an MTT cytotoxicity assay and a Kirby–Bauer antibacterial test, not an Ames test. Searches for TA98/TA100, S9 activation, revertant colonies, and the stated dose range found no passage addressing the claimed results. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • By maintaining a constant flow rate of 0.5 mL min−1 and incorporating real-time monitoring of dissolved oxygen levels, continuous-flow microreactor systems can significantly reduce process variability.

    “By maintaining a constant flow rate of 0.5 mL min−1 and incorporating real-time monitoring of dissolved oxygen levels, process variability can be significantly reduced.”

    From Polydopamine-Based Biomaterials in Oral Medicine: Applications, Mechanisms, and Translational Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [105]

    The Material and methods section on electrospinning/spraying reports a 1 mL/h flow rate for coating dental implants, not a continuous-flow microreactor. Searches for 0.5 mL min−1, dissolved-oxygen monitoring, and reduced process variability found no passage addressing the claim; no page number was provided for the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 75 · Cited by 8

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. [1]Sailer, I., Karasan, D., Todorovic, A., Ligoutsikou, M. & Pjetursson, B. E. Prosthetic failures in dental implant therapy. Periodontology 2022 (88), 130–144 (2000). PMC9305548 35103329
  2. [2]Liu, X., Chu, P. K. & Ding, C. Surface modification of titanium, titanium alloys, and related materials for biomedical applications. Mater. Sci. Eng.: R: Rep. 47, 49–121 (2004). 10.1016/j.mser.2004.11.001 · DOI
  3. [3]Vijay, R. et al. Carbon nanomaterials modified biomimetic dental implants for diabetic patients. Nanomaterials 11, 2977 (2021). 34835740 10.3390/nano11112977 PMC8625459 · DOI
  4. [4]Walter, N., Stich, T., Docheva, D., Alt, V. & Rupp, M. Evolution of implants and advancements for osseointegration: A narrative review. Injury 53, S69-73 (2022). 35948509 10.1016/j.injury.2022.05.057 · DOI
  5. [5]Abaricia, J. O., Shah, A. H., Ruzga, M. N. & Olivares-Navarrete, R. Surface characteristics on commercial dental implants differentially activate macrophages in vitro and in vivo. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 32, 487–497 (2021). 33502059 10.1111/clr.13717 PMC8207525 · DOI
  6. [6]Nicholson, W. & Titanium, J. alloys for dental implants: A review. Prosthesis 2 (2), 11 (2020). 10.3390/prosthesis2020011 · DOI
  7. [7]Kligman, S. et al. The impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration and biofilm formation. J. Clin. Med. 10, 1641 (2021). 33921531 10.3390/jcm10081641 PMC8070594 · DOI
  8. [8]Varadavenkatesan, T. et al. Synthesis, biological and environmental applications of hydroxyapatite and its composites with organic and inorganic coatings. Prog. Organ. Coat. 151, 106056 (2021). 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2020.106056 · DOI
  9. [9]Salave, S. et al. Polysaccharide based implantable drug delivery: Development strategies, regulatory requirements, and future perspectives. Polysaccharides 3 (3), 625–654 (2022). 10.3390/polysaccharides3030037 · DOI
  10. [10]Khalil, M. A. et al. Exploring the therapeutic potentials of exopolysaccharides derived from lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria: Antioxidant, antitumor, and periodontal regeneration. Front. Microbiol. 13, 803688 (2022). 35547125 10.3389/fmicb.2022.803688 PMC9082500 · DOI
  11. [11]Mao, G. H. et al. Effect of Grifola frondosa polysaccharide on anti-tumor activity in combination with 5-Fu in Heps-bearing mice. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 121, 930–935 (2019). 30342137 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.073 · DOI
  12. [12]Ali, S. S., Elgibally, E., Khalil, M. A., Sun, J. & El-Shanshoury, A. E. Characterization and bioactivities of exopolysaccharide produced from Azotobacter salinestris EPS-AZ-6. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 246, 125594 (2023). 37390994 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.125594 · DOI
  13. [13]Morsy, R., Ali, S. S. & El-Shetehy, M. Development of hydroxyapatite-chitosan gel sunscreen combating clinical multidrug-resistant bacteria. J. Mol. Struct. 1143, 251–258 (2017). 10.1016/j.molstruc.2017.04.090 · DOI
  14. [14]Kenawy, E. R. et al. Synthesis, characterization and biomedical applications of a novel Schiff base on methyl acrylate-functionalized chitosan bearing p-nitrobenzaldehyde groups. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 122, 833–843 (2019). 30404030 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.11.005 · DOI
  15. [15]Ali, S. S. et al. Pharmaceutical potential of a novel chitosan derivative Schiff base with special reference to antibacterial, anti-biofilm, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, hemocompatibility and cytotoxic activities. Pharm. Res. 36, 1–8 (2019). 10.1007/s11095-018-2535-x 30406460 · DOI
  16. [16]Ibrahim, S. W. & Al Nakkash, W. A. Mechanical evaluation of nano hydroxyapatite, chitosan and collagen composite coating compared with nano hydroxyapatite coating on commercially pure titanium dental implant. J. Baghdad Coll. Dent. 29, 42–48 (2017). 10.12816/0038748 · DOI
  17. [17]Wu, R. et al. Bioactive silk fibroin-based hybrid biomaterials for musculoskeletal engineering: Recent progress and perspectives. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 4 (9), 6630–6646 (2021). 35006966 10.1021/acsabm.1c00654 · DOI
  18. [18]Shin, Y., Chane, A., Jung, M. & Lee, Y. Recent advances in understanding the roles of pectin as an active participant in plant signaling networks. Plants 10, 1712 (2021). 34451757 10.3390/plants10081712 PMC8399534 · DOI
  19. [19]Abdul-Ameer, F. M. Effect of plant-extract disinfectant solutions on the specific properties of reinforced maxillofacial silicone elastomers with nanofiller and intrinsic pigment. Eur. J. Gen. Dent. 9, 55–61 (2020). 10.4103/ejgd.ejgd_86_19 · DOI
  20. [20]Bostancı, N. S., Büyüksungur, S., Hasirci, N. & Tezcaner, A. Potential of pectin for biomedical applications: A comprehensive review. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Edit. 33, 1866–1900 (2022). 10.1080/09205063.2022.2088525 35699216 · DOI
  21. [21]Gaaz, T. S. et al. Properties and applications of polyvinyl alcohol, halloysite nanotubes and their nanocomposites. Molecules 20, 22833–22847 (2015). 26703542 10.3390/molecules201219884 PMC6332455 · DOI
  22. [22]Kumar, S. et al. Nanotechnology-based biomaterials for orthopaedic applications: Recent advances and future prospects. Mater. Sci. Eng.: C 106, 110154 (2020). 10.1016/j.msec.2019.110154 31753376 · DOI
  23. [23]Abdulghafor, M. A. et al. Biomimetic coatings in implant dentistry: A quick update. J. Funct. Biomater. 15 (1), 15 (2023). 38248682 10.3390/jfb15010015 PMC10816551 · DOI
  24. [24]Wang, M. et al. Nanotechnology and nanomaterials for improving neural interfaces. Adv. Funct. Mater. 28, 1700905 (2018). 10.1002/adfm.201700905 · DOI
  25. [25]Liang, W. et al. Current developments and future perspectives of nanotechnology in orthopedic implants: an updated review. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 12, 1342340 (2024). 38567086 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1342340 PMC10986186 · DOI
  26. [26]Rasouli, R., Barhoum, A. & Uludag, H. A review of nanostructured surfaces and materials for dental implants: Surface coating, patterning and functionalization for improved performance. Biomater. Sci. 6, 1312–1338 (2018). 29744496 10.1039/C8BM00021B · DOI
  27. [27]Alsharbaty, M. H., Naji, G. A. & Ali, S. S. Exploring the potential of a newly developed pectin–chitosan polyelectrolyte composite on the surface of commercially pure titanium for dental implants. Sci. Rep. 13, 22203 (2023). 38097618 10.1038/s41598-023-48863-2 PMC10721624 · DOI
  28. [29]Fawzi-Grancher, S. et al. Human tissue allograft processing: Impact on in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility. J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 20, 1709–1720 (2009). 19301101
  29. [30]Sukaryo, S. G., Purnama, A. & Hermawan, H. Structure and properties of biomaterials. In Biomaterials and Medical Devices. Advanced Structured Materials Vol. 58 (eds Mahyudin, F. & Hermawan, H.) 1–22 (Springer, Cham, 2016). 10.1007/978-3-319-14845-8_1. · DOI
  30. [31]Patterson Jr MK. [11] Measurement of growth and viability of cells in culture. in: Methods in enzymology 1979 Jan 1, Vol. 58, 141–152 (Academic Press) 423756
  31. [32]Hakimi, F., Hashemikia, S., Sadighian, S. & Ramazani, A. Nanofibrous chitosan/polyethylene oxide silver/hydroxyapatite/silica composite as a potential biomaterial for local treatment of periodontal disease. Polym. Bull. 80, 8703–8723 (2023). 10.1007/s00289-022-04466-x · DOI
  32. [33]Kamiloglu, S., Sari, G., Ozdal, T. & Capanoglu, E. Guidelines for cell viability assays. Food Front. 1, 332–349 (2020). 10.1002/fft2.44 · DOI
  33. [34]Schultheiss, M. et al. Dulbecco’s modified eagle medium is neuroprotective when compared to standard vitrectomy irrigation solution. Graefe’s Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 251, 1613–1619 (2013). 23306786 10.1007/s00417-012-2255-6 · DOI
  34. [36]Lee, M. J., Kim, M. J., Kwon, J. S., Lee, S. B. & Kim, K. M. Cytotoxicity of light-cured dental materials according to different sample preparation methods. Materials 10, 288 (2017). 28772647 10.3390/ma10030288 PMC5503327 · DOI
  35. [37]Al-Qubaisey, M., Khounganian, R. & Al-Badah, A. Microbiological assessment of titanium plates coated with PLGA, chitosan, and/or Meropenem: An in vitro study. Antibiotics 11 (11), 1565 (2022). 36358220 10.3390/antibiotics11111565 PMC9686476 · DOI
  36. [41]Newbury, D. E. & Ritchie, N. W. Performing elemental microanalysis with high accuracy and high precision by scanning electron microscopy/silicon drift detector energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (SEM/SDD-EDS). J. Mater. Sci. 50, 493–518 (2015). 26346887 10.1007/s10853-014-8685-2 PMC4555346 · DOI
  37. [42]Pellenz, L. et al. A comprehensive guide for characterization of adsorbent materials. Sep. Purif. Technol. 305, 122435 (2023). 10.1016/j.seppur.2022.122435 · DOI
  38. [43]Siroros, N. et al. Evaluation of an early-stage prototype polyurethane femoral head implant for hip arthroplasty. J. Orthop. 50, 49–57 (2024). 38162259 10.1016/j.jor.2023.11.067 PMC10755531 · DOI
  39. [44]Li, W., Zhou, J. & Xu, Y. Study of the in vitro cytotoxicity testing of medical devices. Biomed. Rep. 3, 617–620 (2015). 26405534 10.3892/br.2015.481 PMC4535150 · DOI
  40. [45]Jiao, H. et al. A critical review on plastic waste life cycle assessment and management: Challenges, research gaps, and future perspectives. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 1 (271), 115942 (2024). 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.115942 38218104 · DOI
  41. [46]Bölgen, N., Demir, D., Yalçın, M. S. & Özdemir, S. Development of Hypericum perforatum oil incorporated antimicrobial and antioxidant chitosan cryogel as a wound dressing material. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 161, 1581–1590 (2020). 32777412 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.08.056 · DOI
  42. [47]Lamponi, S. Preliminary in vitro cytotoxicity, mutagenicity and antitumoral activity evaluation of graphene flake and aqueous graphene paste. Life 12, 242 (2022). 35207529 10.3390/life12020242 PMC8878666 · DOI
  43. [48]Sarraf, M., Rezvani Ghomi, E., Alipour, S., Ramakrishna, S. & Liana Sukiman, N. A state-of-the-art review of the fabrication and characteristics of titanium and its alloys for biomedical applications. Bio-Des. Manuf. 10.1007/s42242-021-00170-3 (2021). 10.1007/s42242-021-00170-3 PMC8546395 34721937 · DOI
  44. [49]Martins, A. F. et al. Chitosan/iota-carrageenan and chitosan/pectin polyelectrolyte multilayer scaffolds with antiadhesive and bactericidal properties. Appl. Surf. Sci. 502, 144282 (2020). 10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.144282 · DOI
  45. [50]D’Almeida, M. et al. Chitosan coating as an antibacterial surface for biomedical applications. PLoS One 12 (12), e0189537 (2017). 29236781 10.1371/journal.pone.0189537 PMC5728531 · DOI
  46. [51]López-Valverde, N. et al. Role of chitosan in titanium coatings. Trends and new generations of coatings. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 10, 907589 (2022). 35935477 10.3389/fbioe.2022.907589 PMC9354072 · DOI
  47. [52]Bigucci, F. et al. Chitosan/pectin polyelectrolyte complexes: Selection of suitable preparative conditions for colon-specific delivery of vancomycin. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 35, 435–441 (2008). 18951977 10.1016/j.ejps.2008.09.004 · DOI
  48. [53]Molitor, P., Barron, V. & Young, T. Surface treatment of titanium for adhesive bonding to polymer composites: A review. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 21, 129–136 (2001). 10.1016/S0143-7496(00)00044-0 · DOI
  49. [54]Van Dam, J. P. et al. Effect of surface roughness and chemistry on the adhesion and durability of a steel-epoxy adhesive interface. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 96, 102450 (2020). 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2019.102450 · DOI
  50. [55]Barfeie, A., Wilson, J. & Rees, J. Implant surface characteristics and their effect on osseointegration. Brit. Dent. J. 218, E9 (2015). 25766196 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.171 · DOI
  51. [56]Li, X. et al. Nanostructured scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 101, 2424–2435 (2013). 10.1002/jbm.a.34539 23377988 · DOI
  52. [57]He, X. & Sui, D. Surface morphology analysis and hydrophobic property design for cotton clothing fabric based on vinyl-bearing silane coupling agent. Chem. Pap. 77, 5807–5815 (2023). 10.1007/s11696-023-02898-x · DOI
  53. [58]Saha, S., Grandhi, M., Kiran, K. U., Liu, Z. & Roy, S. Investigating the effect of select alloying elements in additively manufactured Co–Cr alloy for dental prosthetics. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 329, 118434 (2024). 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2024.118434 · DOI
  54. [59]Hsin-Yi, C. et al. Poly (3-hexylthiophene): Indene-C60 bisadduct morphology improvement by the use of polyvinylcarbazole as additive. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 113, 90–95 (2013). 10.1016/j.solmat.2013.01.044 · DOI
  55. [60]Jasmine, S., Thangavelu, A., Krishnamoorthy, R. & Alshatwi, A. A. Platelet concentrates as biomaterials in tissue engineering: A review. Regen. Eng. Transl. Med. 10.1007/s40883-020-00165-z (2020). 10.1007/s40883-020-00165-z · DOI
  56. [61]Mata, G. C., Morais, M. S., Oliveira, W. P. & Aguiar, M. L. Composition effects on the morphology of PVA/chitosan electrospun nanofibers. Polymers 14 (22), 4856 (2022). 36432987 10.3390/polym14224856 PMC9698655 · DOI
  57. [63]Safari, J., Esteghlal, S., Keramat, M. & Khalesi, M. Fabrication of chitosan/pectin/pva nanofibers using electrospinning technique. Nanosci. Nanotechnol.-Asia 10 (2), 134–141 (2020). 10.2174/2210681208666181002124634 · DOI
  58. [64]Kamanna, K., Amaregouda, Y. & Kumar, M. Chitosan/polyvinyl alcohol-based nanocomposite films incorporated with L-Glu surface functionalized ZnO NPs: Physicochemical, photocatalytic, antimicrobial and antioxidant properties evaluation. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monitor. Manag. 20, 100861 (2023).
  59. [65]Peng, J. et al. Physicochemical, structural, and functional properties of wampee (Clausena lansium (Lour.) Skeels) fruit peel pectin extracted with different organic acids. Food Chem. 386, 132834 (2022). 35509166 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.132834 · DOI
  60. [66]Delarmelina, M., Ferreira, G. B., Ferreira, V. F. & Carneiro, J. W. Vibrational spectroscopy of lapachol, α-and β-lapachone: Theoretical and experimental elucidation of the Raman and infrared spectra. Vib. Spectrosc. 86, 311–323 (2016). 10.1016/j.vibspec.2016.08.009 · DOI
  61. [67]Karolina, D., Maja, M. S., Magdalena, D. S. & Grażyna, Ż. Identification of treated Baltic amber by FTIR and FT-Raman: A feasibility study. Spectrochim. Acta Part A: Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 279, 121404 (2022). 10.1016/j.saa.2022.121404 35609390 · DOI
  62. [68]Metwally, S. & Stachewicz, U. Surface potential and charges impact on cell responses on biomaterials interfaces for medical applications. Mater. Sci. Eng.: C 104, 109883 (2019). 10.1016/j.msec.2019.109883 31500046 · DOI
  63. [69]Chen, S. et al. Tuning surface properties of bone biomaterials to manipulate osteoblastic cell adhesion and the signaling pathways for the enhancement of early osseointegration. Colloids Surf. B: Biointerfaces 1 (164), 58–69 (2018). 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2018.01.022 29413621 · DOI
  64. [70]P Facchi, D. et al. Polysaccharide-based materials associated with or coordinated to gold nanoparticles: synthesis and medical application. Curr. Med. Chem. 24 (25), 2701–2735 (2017). 28294043 10.2174/0929867324666170309123351 · DOI
  65. [71]Fialho, L. & Carvalho, S. Surface engineering of nanostructured Ta surface with incorporation of osteoconductive elements by anodization. Appl. Surf. Sci. 495, 143573 (2019). 10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.143573 · DOI
  66. [72]Kong, M. et al. Antimicrobial properties of chitosan and mode of action: A state of the art review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 144 (1), 51–63 (2010). 20951455 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.09.012 · DOI · Paper page
  67. [73]Raafat, D. & Sahl, H.-G. Chitosan and its antimicrobial potential: A critical literature survey. Microb. Biotechnol. 2 (2), 186–201 (2009). 21261913 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2008.00080.x PMC3815839 · DOI
  68. [74]Yilmaz Atay, H. Antibacterial activity of chitosan-based systems. Funct. Chitosan: Drug Deliv. Biomed. Appl. 10.1007/978-981-15-0263-7_15 (2019). 10.1007/978-981-15-0263-7_15 · DOI
  69. [75]Abourehab, M. A. S. et al. Recent advances of chitosan formulations in biomedical applications. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23 (18), 10975 (2022). 36142887 10.3390/ijms231810975 PMC9504745 · DOI
  70. [76]Akalin, G. O., Oztuna Taner, O. & Taner, T. The preparation, characterization and antibacterial properties of chitosan/pectin silver nanoparticle films. Polym. Bull. 79 (6), 3495–3512 (2022). 10.1007/s00289-021-03667-0 · DOI
  71. [77]Vakili, N. & Asefnejad, A. Titanium coating: Introducing an antibacterial and bioactive chitosan-alginate film on titanium by spin coating. Biomed. Eng./Biomed. Tech. 65 (5), 621–630 (2020). 32333647
  72. [78]Król, Ż et al. Cytotoxicity, bactericidal, and antioxidant activity of sodium alginate hydrosols treated with direct electric current. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 18 (3), 678 (2017). 28327520 10.3390/ijms18030678 PMC5372688 · DOI
  73. [79]Martin, H. J. et al. Enhanced bonding of chitosan to implant quality titanium via four treatment combinations. Thin Solid Films 516 (18), 6277–6286 (2008). 10.1016/j.tsf.2007.12.001 · DOI
  74. [80]Smeets, R. et al. A new biphasic osteoinductive calcium composite material with a negative Zeta potential for bone augmentation. Head Face Med. 5, 1–8 (2009). 19523239 10.1186/1746-160X-5-13 PMC2706807 · DOI
  75. [81]bin Anwar Fadzil, A. F. et al. Role of surface quality on biocompatibility of implants: A review. Ann. 3D Print. Med. 8, 100082 (2022). 10.1016/j.stlm.2022.100082 · DOI

Authors
Alsharbaty, M. H. M., Naji, G. A., Ghani, B. A., Schagerl, M., Khalil, M. A., & Ali, S. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Al-Ameed (IQ)
  • Iraqi University (IQ)
  • University of Baghdad (IQ)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • Taif University (SA)
  • Tanta University (EG)
Corresponding author
  • Alsharbaty, Mohammed Hussein M.
  • Schagerl, Michael
  • Ali, Sameh S.
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-07-23
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
16968-16968
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-024-68020-7
PMC
PMC11266696
OpenAlex
W4400965579
Cited by
8
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Baghdad
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Surface Treatment and Coatings
Keywords
dental implants, commercially pure titanium, electrospraying, antibacterial activity, cytotoxicity, cell viability, pull-off adhesion strength, surface roughness, physical blending, biopolymer coatings, inhibition zone, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli
MeSH terms
Polyelectrolytes, Animals, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Cell Survival, Humans, Materials Testing, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Pectins, Surface Properties, Titanium, Dental Implants, Spectroscopy, Fourier Transform Infrared, Microscopy, Atomic Force, Coated Materials, Biocompatible, Chitosan, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review