Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5361_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Aim and Scope
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgments
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •About the Editors
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2.1 Friction
- •1.2.1.3 Friction Under Lubricated Conditions
- •1.7.1 Joint Tribology
- •1.7.2 Skin Tribology
- •1.7.3 Oral Tribology
- •1.8 Summary
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.3.1 Fluid Pressurization/Fluid-Film Lubrication
- •2.3.2 Boundary Lubrication
- •2.3.3 Hydrodynamic Lubrication
- •2.3.4 Squeeze-Film Lubrication
- •2.3.5 Synovial Fluid
- •2.3.6 Hydration Lubrication
- •2.5.2 Scaffolds
- •2.5.3 Synthetic Polymer
- •2.5.4 Polyacrylamide
- •2.5.5 PEG Hydrogel
- •2.5.6 PVA Hydrogel
- •2.5.7 Double Network Hydrogel
- •2.5.8 Triple Network Hydrogel
- •2.6.1 Polyacrylamide
- •2.6.2 PEG Hydrogel
- •2.6.3 PVA Hydrogel
- •2.6.4 Double Network Hydrogel
- •2.6.5 Triple Network Hydrogel
- •2.7.1 Mechanical Properties
- •2.7.2 Structural Properties
- •2.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.3.1 Label-Based Biosensors
- •3.3.2 Label-Free Biosensors
- •3.4 Different Nanobiosensing Techniques
- •3.4.1 Optical Sensing
- •3.4.2 Electrochemical/Electrical Sensing
- •3.4.3 Magnetic Sensing
- •3.4.4 Mass-Based Sensing
- •3.6.2 Neurodegenerative Diseases
- •3.6.3 Infectious Diseases
- •3.6.4 Metabolic Diseases
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2.1 Surface Functionalization
- •4.2.2 Bioconjugation
- •4.3 Synthesis Approach
- •4.3.1 Hydrothermal Method
- •4.3.2 Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD)
- •4.3.3 Wet Chemical Method
- •4.4 Plasmonic Black Bodies (PBBs)
- •4.4.1 Gold NP (AuNPs)-Based PBB
- •4.4.2 Silver NPs (Ag NPs)-Based PBB
- •4.4.3 Platinum NPs (Pt NPs)-Based PBB
- •4.5 Biomimetic NP
- •4.6 Upconverting NP (UCNP)
- •4.6.1 Synthesis
- •4.7 Inorganic NP
- •4.7.1 Synthesis
- •4.8 Photothermal Therapy (PTT)
- •4.9 Conclusion
- •References
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 Human Skin
- •5.10 Future Scope
- •5.11 Conclusion
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.1.1 Class 1
- •6.1.2 Class 2
- •6.1.3 Class 3
- •6.4.1.1 Surface Patterning
- •6.4.1.2 Direct-Write Patterning
- •6.4.1.5 Dip-Pen Nanotechnology
- •6.4.1.7 Composing Using Beams
- •6.4.1.8 Direct Write Photolithography (DWP)
- •6.4.1.9 Light-Beam Lithography Electron
- •6.4.1.10 Focused Ion Beam Lithography
- •6.4.2 Fabrication Techniques
- •6.4.2.4 Non-invasive Glucose Monitoring Devices Technique
- •6.4.2.6 Cost-Effective Electrochemical Voltametric Sensors Techniques
- •6.4.2.7 Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing Techniques
- •6.4.2.8 UV-LED Stereolithography Printer Technique
- •6.4.2.9 4D Printing Techniques
- •6.4.2.10 Advanced Biomedical Techniques Involving Biorobots
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.6 Mechanical Biocompatibility Challenges
- •7.7 Poor Bio-Printing Resolution
- •7.9 Limited Biomaterial Selection
- •7.11 Conclusion
- •8.2 Animal Tribology
- •8.2.1 Joint
- •8.2.3 Integumentary Change
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.3.1 Nanotribology
- •8.4 Green Tribology
- •8.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Bio-Tribological Issues
- •9.3.2 Bone Fracture Fixation
- •9.3.4 Cardiovascular Devices
- •9.3.5 Minimal Invasive Surgical Devices
- •References
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.2.2.1 Structural Integrity
- •10.2.2.2 Controlled Release Properties
- •10.2.2.3 Enhanced Drug Loading Capacity
- •10.2.2.4 Tailored Material Properties
- •10.2.3.1 Biocompatibility
- •10.2.3.3 Mechanical Properties
- •10.2.3.4 Drug Compatibility
- •10.2.3.5 Fabrication Compatibility
- •10.3.1 Matrix Material Properties
- •10.3.4 Biocompatibility Assessment
- •10.3.4.1 In Vitro Cell Culture Studies
- •10.3.4.2 Hemocompatibility Studies
- •10.3.4.3 In Vivo Animal Studies
- •10.3.4.4 Histological Analysis
- •10.3.4.5 Immune Response Evaluation
- •10.3.4.6 Biodegradation Assessment
- •10.4 Surface Engineering Considerations
- •10.4.2.1 Surface Coatings
- •10.4.2.2 Plasma Treatment
- •10.4.2.3 Surface Grafting
- •10.4.2.4 Dip Coating
- •10.4.2.5 Spray Coating System
- •10.4.2.6 Electrotreated Coating
- •10.4.2.9 Microfabrication Techniques
- •10.4.2.10 Surface Roughness Control
- •10.5.1.2 Mechanical Properties
- •10.5.1.3 Surface Characteristics
- •10.5.1.4 Release Kinetics Analysis
- •10.5.1.5 Biological Compatibility
- •10.5.1.7 Other Analyses
- •10.6 Advanced Fabrication Techniques
- •10.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Shape Memory Alloys (SMA)
- •11.3 Shape Memory Polymers
- •11.3.1 Heat
- •11.3.2 Light
- •11.3.3 Magnetic Field
- •11.4 Shape-Changing Hydrogels
- •11.5 Biomedical Applications
- •11.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.3 Bioresorbable Orthopedic Implants
- •12.4.1 Polylactides
- •12.4.2 Poly (Ortho Esters)
- •12.4.3 Polyphosphoesters
- •12.4.4 Polyphosphazenes
- •12.4.5 Polycaprolactone
- •12.4.6 Polyurethanes
- •12.4.7 Polycarbonates
- •12.5.1 Compression Molding
- •12.5.2 Transfer Molding
- •12.5.3 Injection Molding
- •12.5.4 Extrusion
- •12.5.5 Blow Molding
- •12.5.6 Calendering Process
- •12.5.7 Fiber Spinning
- •12.5.8 Thermoforming
- •12.5.9 Polymer Foaming
- •12.7 Challenges
- •12.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.3.1.1 Total Hip Replacement (THR)
- •13.3.2 Resurfacing Hip Replacement (RHR)
- •13.5.1 Adhesive Wear
- •13.5.2 Abrasive Wear
- •13.5.3 Fatigue Wear
- •13.5.4 Corrosion/Oxidative Wear
- •13.5.5 Surface Cracking
- •13.6.1 Metallic Implants
- •13.6.1.1 Stainless Steel
- •13.6.1.2 Co-Cr Alloys
- •13.6.1.3 Ti-Alloy
- •13.6.2 Ceramic Implants
- •13.6.3 Polymer Implants
- •13.6.4 Composite Implants
- •13.6.5.2 Surface Coatings
- •13.7.2.1 Hydrodynamic Lubrication
- •13.7.2.2 Boundary Lubrication
- •13.7.2.3 Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication
- •13.7.3 Biomimetic Lubrication Approaches
- •13.7.3.1 Replicating Natural Lubrication Mechanisms
- •13.7.4.1 Implant Wear
- •13.7.4.3 Synovial Fluid Degradation
- •13.8.1 Hydroxyapatite Coatings
- •13.8.1.1 Bone Integration
- •13.8.1.2 Implant Stability
- •13.8.1.4 Biocompatibility
- •13.8.2 Diamond-Like Carbon Coatings
- •13.8.3 Metal Nitride Coatings
- •13.8.4 Polymeric Coatings
- •13.8.5 Nanocomposite Coatings
- •13.9.1 Pin-on-Disk Testing
- •13.9.2 Hip Joint Simulators
- •13.9.3 Knee Joint Simulators
- •13.9.4 Tribo-Corrosion Testing
- •13.9.5 Wear Debris Analysis Techniques
- •13.9.5.1 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
- •13.9.5.2 Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (EDS)
- •13.10.1.1 Tailored Geometries
- •13.10.1.2 Improved Wear Characteristics
- •13.10.1.3 Accelerated Innovation
- •13.10.2.1 Real-Time Wear Monitoring
- •13.10.2.2 Functionality Assessment
- •13.10.2.3 Implant Status Monitoring
- •13.10.2.4 Patient-Centric Healthcare
- •13.10.3.1 Advanced Biomaterials
- •13.10.3.4 Multidisciplinary Approaches
- •13.10.4.1 Wear Data Analysis
- •13.10.4.2 Predictive Wear Patterns
- •13.10.4.3 Early Intervention Strategies
- •13.10.4.4 Personalized Treatment Plans
- •13.11 Conclusion
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2.1 Powder Bed Fusion (PBF)
- •14.2.2 Directed Energy Deposition
- •14.3.1 Extrusion-Based AM
- •14.5 Biomanufacturing
- •14.5.1 Tissue Engineering
- •14.5.2 Organ-on-a-Chip Models
- •14.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Index

10 Composites forDrug-Eluting Devices: Emerging Biomedical Applications
295
advancing the eld and unlocking the full potential of composite-based drug delivery devices.
10.7.1.1 Biocompatibility andToxicity Concerns
Achieving optimal biocompatibility remains a challenge in the design of compositebased drug delivery devices. The interaction between the composite materials and
the biological environment must be carefully considered to prevent adverse reactions or toxicity. The release of byproducts during the degradation of composite
materials may pose challenges in maintaining a biocompatible environment, particularly over extended periods. Rigorous testing and evaluation are essential to
ensure the safety of these devices within the complex biological milieu [245].
10.7.1.2 Controlled andPredictable Release Proles
Ensuring precise and controlled drug release from composite-based devices presents a signicant challenge. Achieving a predictable release prole over the desired
timeframe, without the risk of burst release or erratic kinetics, is crucial for therapeutic efcacy. Factors such as material degradation, environmental conditions, and
incorporating multiple components contribute to the complexity of achieving controlled release. Developing strategies to enhance the predictability and reproducibility of drug release remains an ongoing challenge in the eld [246].
10.7.1.3 Mechanical Integrity andDurability
The mechanical integrity and durability of composite-based drug delivery devices
are critical for their long-term functionality. Factors such as device implantation,
physiological stresses, and material degradation over time can affect the structural
stability of these devices. Balancing the need for structural integrity with the desired
drug release properties poses a challenge, as modications to enhance one aspect
may compromise the other. Ensuring that composite devices maintain their structural integrity throughout the intended duration of therapy is essential for their clinical success [247].
10.7.1.4 Scalability andManufacturing Consistency
Achieving consistent manufacturing and scalability of composite-based drug delivery devices is a challenge that needs to be addressed for broader clinical adoption.
The transition from laboratory-scale fabrication to large-scale production introduces variability in device properties, affecting their performance and reliability.
Ensuring reproducibility and standardization in the manufacturing process is crucial

296
A. K. Gupta et al.
for meeting regulatory requirements and facilitating the translation of these devices
from research to clinical practice [248].
10.7.1.5 Integration ofAdvanced Fabrication Techniques
While additive manufacturing has shown great promise, integrating these advanced
fabrication techniques into routine production processes remains challenging. The
scalability, cost-effectiveness, and regulatory considerations associated with additive manufacturing must be carefully addressed. Overcoming these challenges is
vital to harness the full potential of additive manufacturing in creating complex and
patient-specic composite-based drug delivery devices [249].
10.7.1.6 Multifunctionality andCombination Therapies
The incorporation of multiple therapeutic agents or the pursuit of multifunctional
composite-based drug delivery devices introduces challenges related to compatibility, synergistic effects, and optimal dosing. Coordinating the release of different
agents with distinct properties and mechanisms of action requires precise engineering. Achieving a harmonious integration of multifunctionality, especially in combination therapies, poses a complex challenge that necessitates careful consideration
of synergies, antagonisms, and potential interference between therapeutic
agents [250].
Addressing these challenges will be pivotal for advancing the eld of compositebased drug delivery devices. Future research efforts should focus on innovative
material design, improved fabrication techniques, and comprehensive preclinical
testing to overcome these obstacles and pave the way for the widespread adoption
of composite-based drug delivery solutions in diverse biomedical applications [251].
10.7.2 Emerging Trends andFuture Directions inResearch
The eld of composite-based drug delivery devices is experiencing a paradigm shift
with the integration of nanotechnology. Researchers are exploring the incorporation
of nanoparticles and nanomaterials into composite matrices, aiming to enhance
drug loading capacities and achieve more precise controlled release proles
[252–258]. This emerging trend seeks to leverage the unique properties of nanoscale
materials to rene drug delivery efciency, opening avenues for developing more
sophisticated and effective drug delivery platforms. Another notable research trend
involves exploring smart and responsive composite-based drug delivery devices
[259]. Scientists are investigating materials that can dynamically adapt to

10 Composites forDrug-Eluting Devices: Emerging Biomedical Applications
297
physiological changes or external stimuli, enabling on-demand drug release. This
responsive approach includes the development of stimuli-responsive polymers that
can be integrated into composite matrices, allowing for personalized and dynamic
drug delivery. The potential applications of such smart composites extend to conditions with uctuating therapeutic requirements, aligning with the principles of precision medicine.
Biomimetic composites represent a forward-looking direction in research, focusing on closely mimicking the natural microenvironment of tissues. Developing
composites incorporating bioactive molecules, growth factors, and structural elements resembling the extracellular matrix is gaining attention. Future research is
expected to tailor these biomimetic composites to specic tissue types, enhancing
tissue regeneration and repair [260]. This trend aligns with the broader goals of
regenerative medicine and tissue engineering, aiming to create composite-based
devices that seamlessly integrate with natural biological processes. Integrating
composite- based drug delivery devices with personalized medicine approaches is
an emerging trend with signicant promise. Researchers are exploring ways to tailor drug release proles based on individual patient characteristics, genetic information, and disease progression [261]. This involves developing patient-specic
composite devices that account for variations in metabolism, drug response, and
anatomical considerations. This trend aligns with the growing emphasis on personalized healthcare, envisioning composite devices that offer customized therapeutic
interventions for improved patient outcomes. Integrating biohybrid materials, combining synthetic and natural components, into composite-based drug delivery
devices is an emerging frontier with the potential to enhance biocompatibility and
tissue integration [262]. This bioinspired approach could mimic the intricate architecture of native tissues, fostering improved compatibility and active contribution to
tissue regeneration. This integration with principles of tissue engineering could
redene composite devices, making them not only carriers of therapeutic agents but
active participants in the regeneration and repair of tissues.
Smart sensors and monitoring technologies are poised to revolutionize the functionality of composite-based drug delivery devices [263]. Embedding sensors within
the composite matrix allows for real-time monitoring of crucial parameters, such as
drug release kinetics and environmental conditions. Multimodal imaging and theragnostic represent an innovative direction in composite-based drug delivery research
[264]. Scientists are exploring the incorporation of diagnostic functionalities within
composite matrices, allowing for real-time monitoring of drug release and therapeutic response. This trend involves integrating imaging agents or diagnostic technologies into the composite matrix, providing clinicians with valuable insights into
treatment efcacy and enabling adjustments to therapeutic strategies based on realtime feedback. Articial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are increasingly
employed in designing and optimizing composite-based drug delivery devices
[265]. Computational models and AI algorithms aid in predicting material interactions, optimizing drug release proles, and accelerating development. This trend
has the potential to streamline the design of composite devices, enhance their performance, and facilitate more efcient translation from research to clinical

298
A. K. Gupta et al.
applications. Finally, an emerging trend emphasizes sustainability and the development of biodegradable composite materials. Researchers are exploring eco-friendly
alternatives to traditional composite matrices, aiming to reduce the environmental
impact of drug delivery devices. This trend aligns with broader societal efforts
toward green technologies and ensures that the life cycle of composite devices is
environmentally responsible [266–271].
10.8 Conclusion
This review comprehensively explored the potential of composites in drug delivery,
highlighting their role in enhancing the performance and functionality of drugeluting devices in biomedical applications. The study delineated the unique advantages of composites, particularly their structural integrity, controlled release
properties, and enhanced drug loading capacity, which are crucial for targeted treatment and improved patient outcomes. The importance of selecting suitable matrix
materials was emphasized, considering factors such as biocompatibility, degradability, mechanical properties, drug compatibility, fabrication compatibility, cost,
and accessibility. The review also delved into the signicance of release mechanisms, toxic evaluation, and biocompatibility assessment in ensuring the efcacy
and safety of composite-based drug delivery devices. Surface engineering considerations were addressed, showcasing various techniques for enhancing surface properties, including surface coatings, plasma treatment, surface grafting, dip coating,
spray coating system, electrotreated coating, nanocoating, nanoparticle incorporation, polymer blending, composite formation, microfabrication techniques, surface
roughness control, and incorporation of smart materials. These techniques play a
vital role in optimizing the performance and functionality of composite-based drug
delivery devices.
Characterization methods for drug-eluting composites, such as structural and
chemical analysis, mechanical properties evaluation, surface characteristics assessment, release kinetics analysis, biological compatibility, invivo imaging, inammatory response assessment, and other analyses, were discussed in detail. These
methods provide valuable insights into the composition, performance, and efcacy
of composite-based drug delivery devices. Advanced fabrication techniques, particularly additive manufacturing, were highlighted for their pivotal role in biomedical applications, including drug delivery, tissue engineering, and regenerative
medicine. The use of additive manufacturing in fabricating drug-eluting devices
offers precision, customization, and scalability, thereby addressing current challenges in composite-based drug delivery devices, such as biocompatibility, controlled release, mechanical integrity, scalability, manufacturing consistency, and
integration of advanced fabrication techniques. The study also identied emerging
trends and future directions in research, including multifunctionality and combination therapies, which hold promise for further enhancing the performance and

10 Composites forDrug-Eluting Devices: Emerging Biomedical Applications
299
functionality of composite-based drug delivery devices in transformative biomedical applications.
Overall, this review provides a comprehensive understanding of composite material usage in drug delivery mechanisms and their potential across various biomedical domains. It underscores the importance of advanced fabrication techniques,
such as additive manufacturing, in addressing current challenges and steering the
eld toward transformative biomedical applications. The insights presented in this
review aim to equip readers with a foundational grasp of composite-based drug
delivery devices, facilitating broader comprehension and paving the way for innovative solutions in the eld of biomedical engineering.
References
1. Sanchez-Rexach, E., E.Meaurio, and J.-R. Sarasua, Recent developments in drug eluting
devices with tailored interfacial properties. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 2017.
249: p.181–191.
2. Nakazawa, G., etal., A review of current devices and a look at new technology: drug-eluting
stents. Expert review of medical devices, 2009. 6(1): p.33–42.
3. Hum, J. and A.R. Boccaccini, Bioactive glasses as carriers for bioactive molecules and
therapeutic drugs: a review. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, 2012. 23:
p.2317–2333.
4. Salehi, B., etal., Phytochemicals in prostate cancer: from bioactive molecules to upcoming
therapeutic agents. Nutrients, 2019. 11(7): p.1483.
5. Atkinson, C., etal., Effective delivery of therapeutic interventions: ndings from four site
visits. Educational Psychology in Practice, 2013. 29(1): p.54–68.
6. Kamath, K.R., J.J.Barry, and K.M.Miller, The Taxus™ drug-eluting stent: A new paradigm
in controlled drug delivery. Advanced drug delivery reviews, 2006. 58(3): p.412–436.
7. Kohn, J. and J.Zeltinger, Degradable, drug-eluting stents: a new frontier for the treatment of
coronary artery disease. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 2005. 2(6): p.667–671.
8. Wessely, R., New drug-eluting stent concepts. Nature Reviews Cardiology, 2010. 7(4):
p.194–203.
9. Christensen, H., K.M.Grifths, and A.F.Jorm, Delivering interventions for depression by
using the internet: randomised controlled trial. Bmj, 2004. 328(7434): p.265.
10. Papafaklis, M.I., etal., Drug-eluting stent restenosis: effect of drug type, release kinetics,
hemodynamics and coating strategy. Pharmacology & therapeutics, 2012. 134(1): p.43–53.
11. Tesfamariam, B., Drug release kinetics from stent device-based delivery systems. Journal of
Cardiovascular Pharmacology, 2008. 51(2): p.118–125.
12. Yunus, W.M.A.W.M., P.Musiat, and J.S.L.Brown, Systematic review of universal and targeted
workplace interventions for depression. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2017.
13. Zelikin, A.N., C.Ehrhardt, and A.M.Healy, Materials and methods for delivery of biological
drugs. Nature chemistry, 2016. 8(11): p.997–1007.
14. Cheraghi, M., etal., Heart targeted nanoliposomal/nanoparticles drug delivery: An updated
review. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 2017. 86: p.316–323.
15. Herdeg, C., etal., Local catheter-based delivery of antithrombotic or antiproliferative drugs:
a new concept for prevention of restenosis. Thrombosis research, 2008. 123(2): p.236–243.
16. Stahlmann, R. and H.Lode, Safety overview: toxicity, adverse effects, and drug interactions.
The quinolones, 2000: p.397–453.

300
17. Bassand, C., etal., Smart design of patient-centric long-acting products: from preclinical to
marketed pipeline trends and opportunities. Expert opinion on drug delivery, 2022. 19(10):
p.1265–1283.
18. Liaskoni, A., 3D printed polymeric drug-eluting implants for personalized therapy. 2022.
19. Lansky, A., etal., Rening drug-eluting stent technologies: from engineering to basic sci-
ence. 2021, Oxford University Press. p.1770–1772.
20. Roy, D., et al., Synergistic effect of Nb and Zr additions on the structure-property relation-
ships of nanocrystalline Cu processed by mechanical alloying and hot pressing. Journal of
Alloys and Compounds, 2021. 854: p.157174.
21. Roy, D., et al., Synergistic effect of Nb and Zr addition in thermal stabilization of nano-
crystalline Cu synthesized by ball milling. Materials Letters, 2020. 271: p.127780.
22. Tahmasebi, E., etal., Current biocompatible materials in oral regeneration: A comprehensive
overview of composite materials. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 2020. 9(5):
p.11731–11755.
23. Luke, J.J., etal., Targeted agents and immunotherapies: optimizing outcomes in melanoma.
Nature reviews Clinical oncology, 2017. 14(8): p.463–482.
24. Arora, A., etal., Drug eluting sutures: A recent update. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical
Science, 2019. 9(7): p.111–123.
25. Gioumouxouzis, C.I., C.Karavasili, and D.G.Fatouros, Recent advances in pharmaceutical
dosage forms and devices using additive manufacturing technologies. Drug discovery today,
2019. 24(2): p.636–643.
26. Khalid, G.M. and N.Billa, Drug-Eluting Sutures by Hot-Melt Extrusion: Current Trends and
Future Potentials. Materials, 2023. 16(22): p.7245.
27. Sharma, S., etal., Critical review of biodegradable and bioactive polymer composites for
bone tissue engineering and drug delivery applications. Polymers, 2021. 13(16): p.2623.
28. Inamuddin, A. and A.Mohammad, Applications of nanocomposite materials in drug deliv-
ery. 2018: Elsevier.
29. Gupta, A.K., B.Mallik, and D.Roy, Structure Property Correlation of In Situ Reinforced
Al–Based Metal Matrix Composite via Stir Casting. Mater. Perform. Charact., 2020. 9(1):
p.25–35.
30. Roy, D., etal., Stable nanocrystalline structure attainment and strength enhancement of Cu
base alloy using bi-modal distributed tungsten dispersoids. Philosophical Magazine, 2022.
102(3): p.189–209.
31. Mufamadi, M.S., etal., A review on composite liposomal technologies for specialized drug
delivery. Journal of drug delivery, 2011. 2011.
32. Singh, A.P., etal., Targeted therapy in chronic diseases using nanomaterial-based drug deliv-
ery vehicles. Signal transduction and targeted therapy, 2019. 4(1): p.33.
33. Raza, A., et al., Endogenous and exogenous stimuli-responsive drug delivery systems for
programmed site-specic release. Molecules, 2019. 24(6): p.1117.
34. Yang, P., etal., A magnetic, luminescent and mesoporous core–shell structured composite
material as drug carrier. Biomaterials, 2009. 30(27): p.4786–4795.
35. Zilberman, M. and J.J.Elsner, Antibiotic-eluting medical devices for various applications.
Journal of Controlled Release, 2008. 130(3): p.202–215.
36. Pruitt, B.A. and N.S.Levine, Characteristics and uses of biologic dressings and skin substi-
tutes. Archives of surgery, 1984. 119(3): p.312–322.
37. Radu, F.A., etal., Modeling of drug release from collagen matrices. Journal of pharmaceutical sciences, 2002. 91(4): p.964–972.
38. Webb, J.C.J. and R.F. Spencer, The role of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement in mod-
ern orthopaedic surgery. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume, 2007. 89(7):
p.851–857.
39. Elsner, J.J., etal., Highly porous drug-eluting structures: From wound dressings to stents and
scaffolds for tissue regeneration. Biomatter, 2012. 2(4): p.239–270.
A. K. Gupta et al.

10 Composites forDrug-Eluting Devices: Emerging Biomedical Applications
40. Shemesh, M. and M.Zilberman, Structure–property effects of novel bioresorbable hybrid
structures with controlled release of analgesic drugs for wound healing applications. Acta
Biomaterialia, 2014. 10(3): p.1380–1391.
41. Zilberman, M., etal., Gentamicin-eluting bioresorbable composite bers for wound healing
applications. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A: An Ofcial Journal of The
Society for Biomaterials, The Japanese Society for Biomaterials, and The Australian Society
for Biomaterials and the Korean Society for Biomaterials, 2009. 89(3): p.654–666.
42. Saghazadeh, S., etal., Drug delivery systems and materials for wound healing applications.
Advanced drug delivery reviews, 2018. 127: p.138–166.
43. Dimatteo, R., N.J.Darling, and T.Segura, In situ forming injectable hydrogels for drug deliv-
ery and wound repair. Advanced drug delivery reviews, 2018. 127: p.167–184.
44. Rambhia, K.J. and P.X. Ma, Controlled drug release for tissue engineering. Journal of
Controlled Release, 2015. 219: p.119–128.
45. Tran, C.D. and T.M. Mututuvari, Cellulose, chitosan, and keratin composite materials.
Controlled drug release. Langmuir, 2015. 31(4): p.1516–1526.
46. Lin, M., etal., Structure and release behavior of PMMA/silica composite drug delivery sys-
tem. Journal of pharmaceutical sciences, 2007. 96(6): p.1518–1526.
47. Pal, D.B., etal., Synthesis and characterization of bio-composite nanober for controlled
drug release. Journal of environmental chemical engineering, 2017. 5(6): p.5843–5849.
48. Parra-Nieto, J., etal., Inorganic porous nanoparticles for drug delivery in antitumoral ther-
apy. Biotechnology Journal, 2021. 16(2): p.2000150.
49. Wu, C., et al., Bioactive inorganic-materials/alginate composite microspheres with con-
trollable drug-delivery ability. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied
Biomaterials, 2010. 94(1): p.32–43.
50. Cui, W., J.Li, and G.Decher, Self-assembled smart nanocarriers for targeted drug delivery.
Advanced Materials, 2016. 28(6): p.1302–1311.
51. Zou, Y., etal., Tailored mesoporous inorganic biomaterials: assembly, functionalization, and
drug delivery engineering. Advanced Materials, 2021. 33(2): p.2005215.
52. Mouriño, V., et al., Composite polymer-bioceramic scaffolds with drug delivery capability
for bone tissue engineering. Expert opinion on drug delivery, 2013. 10(10): p.1353–1365.
53. Habraken, W., J.G.C. Wolke, and J.A. Jansen, Ceramic composites as matrices and scaf-
folds for drug delivery in tissue engineering. Advanced drug delivery reviews, 2007. 59(4–5):
p.234–248.
54. Fu, Y. and W.J.Kao, Drug release kinetics and transport mechanisms of non-degradable
and degradable polymeric delivery systems. Expert opinion on drug delivery, 2010. 7(4):
p.429–444.
55. Wood, D.A., Biodegradable drug delivery systems. International Journal of pharmaceutics,
1980. 7(1): p.1–18.
56. Hui, Y., etal., Role of nanoparticle mechanical properties in cancer drug delivery. ACS nano,
2019. 13(7): p.7410–7424.
57. Naik, K., etal., Mechanical properties, biological behaviour and drug release capability
of nano TiO2-HAp-Alginate composite scaffolds for potential application as bone implant
material. Journal of Biomaterials Applications, 2016. 31(3): p.387–399.
58. Gopi, S., etal. Biopolymers and their composites for drug delivery: a brief review. Wiley
Online Library.
59. Rykowska, I., I.Nowak, and R.Nowak, Drug-eluting stents and balloons—materials, struc-
ture designs, and coating techniques: a review. Molecules, 2020. 25(20): p.4624.
60. Domsta, V. and A.Seidlitz, 3D-printing of drug-eluting implants: an overview of the current
developments described in the literature. Molecules, 2021. 26(13): p.4066.
61. Wu, P. and D.W.Grainger, Drug/device combinations for local drug therapies and infection
prophylaxis. Biomaterials, 2006. 27(11): p.2450–2467.
62. Johnson, A.R., et al., Drug eluting implants in pharmaceutical development and clinical
practice. Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery, 2021. 18(5): p.577–593.
301

302
63. Anderson, J.M., Biocompatibility and bioresponse to biomaterials, in Principles of regenera-
tive medicine. 2019, Elsevier. p.675–694.
64. Williams, D.F., Biocompatibility pathways: biomaterials-induced sterile inammation,
mechanotransduction, and principles of biocompatibility control. ACS Biomaterials Science
& Engineering, 2017. 3(1): p.2–35.
65. Mouthuy, P.-A., et al., Biocompatibility of implantable materials: an oxidative stress view-
point. Biomaterials, 2016. 109: p.55–68.
66. Williams, D.F., Biocompatibility pathways and mechanisms for bioactive materials: The bio-
activity zone. Bioactive Materials, 2022. 10: p.306–322.
67. Kyriakides, T.R., etal., Biocompatibility of nanomaterials and their immunological proper-
ties. Biomedical Materials, 2021. 16(4): p.042005.
68. Garvin, K.L., etal., Polylactide/polyglycolide antibiotic implants in the treatment of osteomy-
elitis. A canine model. JBJS, 1994. 76(10): p.1500–1506.
69. Lu, L., C.A.Garcia, and A.G.Mikos, In vitro degradation of thin poly (DL-lactic-co-glycolic
acid) lms. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: An Ofcial Journal of The Society
for Biomaterials, The Japanese Society for Biomaterials, and The Australian Society for
Biomaterials, 1999. 46(2): p.236–244.
70. Overbeck, J.P., etal., Penetration of ciprooxacin into bone: a new bioabsorbable implant.
Journal of Investigative Surgery, 1995. 8(3): p.155–162.
71. Nie, L., etal., In vitro elution of ooxacin from a bioabsorbable polymer. Acta Orthopaedica
Scandinavica, 1995. 66(4): p.365–368.
72. Rutledge, B., etal., Treatment of osteomyelitis with local antibiotics delivered via bioabsorb-
able polymer. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 2003. 411: p.280–287.
73. Hendricks, K.J., etal., Elution characteristics of tobramycin from polycaprolactone in a rab-
bit model. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (1976–2007), 2001. 392: p.418–426.
74. Türesin, F., I. Gürsel, and V. Hasirci, Biodegradable polyhydroxyalkanoate implants for
osteomyelitis therapy: invitro antibiotic release. Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer
Edition, 2001. 12(2): p.195–207.
75. Rossi, S., A.O.Azghani, and A.Omri, Antimicrobial efcacy of a new antibiotic-loaded poly
(hydroxybutyric-co-hydroxyvaleric acid) controlled release system. Journal of antimicrobial
chemotherapy, 2004. 54(6): p.1013–1018.
76. Bryskier, A., Antimicrobial agents: antibacterials and antifungals. 2005: ASM press.
77. Budavari, S., etal., The Merck Index, an encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs, and biologicals.
11th ed., Rahway, NJ: Merck & Co. 1989, Inc.
78. Li, L.C., J.Deng, and D.Stephens, Polyanhydride implant for antibiotic delivery—from the
bench to the clinic. Advanced drug delivery reviews, 2002. 54(7): p.963–986.
79. Santos, A., et al., Drug-releasing implants: current progress, challenges and perspectives.
Journal of Materials Chemistry B, 2014. 2(37): p.6157–6182.
80. Sanopoulou, M. and K.G.Papadokostaki, Controlled drug release systems: Mechanisms and
kinetics. Biomed. Membr.(Bio) Artif. Organs, 2017. 2: p.1–33.
81. Holowka, E.P. and S.K.Bhatia, Controlled-release systems. Drug delivery: materials design
and clinical perspective, 2014: p.7–62.
82. Venkatraman, S., etal., An overview of controlled release systems. Handbook of pharmaceuti-
cal controlled release technology, 2000. 1: p.435–440.
83. Shen, S.I., B.R.Jasti, and X.Li, Design of controlled release drug delivery systems. Standard
Handbook of Biomedical Engineering & Design, 2003. 1: p.161–179.
84. Pandey, S.P., etal., Use of polymers in controlled release of active agents, in Basic fundamen-
tals of drug delivery. 2019, Elsevier. p.113–172.
85. Mazidi, Z., et al., Smart stimuli-responsive implantable drug delivery systems for pro-
grammed and on-demand cancer treatment: An overview on the emerging materials.
Chemical Engineering Journal, 2022. 433: p.134569.
86. Bhusal, P., etal., Controlled release drug delivery systems to improve post-operative pharma-
cotherapy. Drug delivery and translational research, 2016. 6: p.441–451.
A. K. Gupta et al.

10 Composites forDrug-Eluting Devices: Emerging Biomedical Applications
87. Rai, M., etal., Bioactivity of noble metal nanoparticles decorated with biopolymers and
their application in drug delivery. International journal of pharmaceutics, 2015. 496(2):
p.159–172.
88. Patra, J.K., etal., Nano based drug delivery systems: recent developments and future pros-
pects. Journal of nanobiotechnology, 2018. 16(1): p.1–33.
89. Jacob, J., etal., Biopolymer based nanomaterials in drug delivery systems: A review. Materials
today chemistry, 2018. 9: p.43–55.
90. Seunarine, K., etal., 3D polymer scaffolds for tissue engineering. 2006.
91. Neffe, A.T., etal., Progress in biopolymer-based biomaterials and their application in con-
trolled drug delivery. Expert review of medical devices, 2013. 10(6): p.813–833.
92. Gopi, S., A.Amalraj, and S.Thomas, Effective drug delivery system of biopolymers based on
nanomaterials and hydrogels-a review. Drug Des, 2016. 5(129): p.2169–0138.
93. Austin, A.J., etal., Magnesium Sublimation for Growing Thin Films and Conformal Coatings
on 1D Nanostructures. Nanomanufacturing, 2022. 2(4): p.186–193.
94. Chakraborty, S., etal., Nanomechanical properties of mechanically alloyed and spark plasma
sintered W-nanoparticulate dispersed Cu-Nb alloys. Materials Letters, 2020. 274: p.128004.
95. Chen, J., etal., Ionic liquids for the preparation of biopolymer materials for drug/gene deliv-
ery: a review. Green Chemistry, 2018. 20(18): p.4169–4200.
96. Patil, G.V., Biopolymer albumin for diagnosis and in drug delivery. Drug development
research, 2003. 58(3): p.219–247.
97. Swetha, M., etal., Biocomposites containing natural polymers and hydroxyapatite for bone
tissue engineering. International journal of biological macromolecules, 2010. 47(1): p.1–4.
98. Das, D. and S.Pal, Modied biopolymer-dextrin based crosslinked hydrogels: application in
controlled drug delivery. RSC advances, 2015. 5(32): p.25014–25050.
99. García, M.C., Drug delivery systems based on nonimmunogenic biopolymers, in Engineering
of Biomaterials for Drug Delivery Systems. 2018, Elsevier. p.317–344.
100. Grøndahl, L., etal., Applications of alginate biopolymer in drug delivery, in Biointegration
of medical implant materials. 2020, Elsevier. p.375–403.
101. Park, H. and K. Park, Biocompatibility issues of implantable drug delivery systems.
Pharmaceutical research, 1996. 13: p.1770–1776.
102. Wiertelak-Makała, K., etal., Considerations about Cytotoxicity of Resin-Based Composite
Dental Materials: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2023.
25(1): p.152.
103. Bulusu, K.C., etal., Modelling of compound combination effects and applications to ef-
cacy and toxicity: state-of-the-art, challenges and perspectives. Drug discovery today, 2016.
21(2): p.225–238.
104. Mahlapuu, M., etal., Antimicrobial peptides: an emerging category of therapeutic agents.
Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2016: p.194.
105. Anderson, J.M., Biological responses to materials. Annual review of materials research,
2001. 31(1): p.81–110.
106. Yi, B., Q.Xu, and W.Liu, An overview of substrate stiffness guided cellular response and its
applications in tissue regeneration. Bioactive materials, 2022. 15: p.82–102.
107. Chen, C.-J., et al., Identication of a key pathway required for the sterile inammatory
response triggered by dying cells. Nature medicine, 2007. 13(7): p.851–856.
108. Armentano, I., etal., Biodegradable polymer matrix nanocomposites for tissue engineering:
a review. Polymer degradation and stability, 2010. 95(11): p.2126–2146.
109. Law, K.L. and R.Narayan, Reducing environmental plastic pollution by designing polymer
materials for managed end-of-life. Nature Reviews Materials, 2022. 7(2): p.104–116.
110. Reeve, L. and P.Baldrick, Biocompatibility assessments for medical devices–evolving regu-
latory considerations. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 2017. 14(2): p.161–167.
111. Pariente, J.L., B.S. Kim, and A. Atala, In vitro biocompatibility assessment of natu-
rally derived and synthetic biomaterials using normal human urothelial cells. Journal of
Biomedical Materials Research: An Ofcial Journal of The Society for Biomaterials, The
303

304
Japanese Society for Biomaterials, and The Australian Society for Biomaterials and the
Korean Society for Biomaterials, 2001. 55(1): p.33–39.
112. Müller, G. and A.Kramer, Biocompatibility index of antiseptic agents by parallel assessment
of antimicrobial activity and cellular cytotoxicity. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy,
2008. 61(6): p.1281–1287.
113. Serrano, M.C., et al., In vitro biocompatibility assessment of poly (ε-caprolactone) lms
using L929 mouse broblasts. Biomaterials, 2004. 25(25): p.5603–5611.
114. Raikar, A.S., et al., Surface Engineering of Bioactive Coatings for Improved Stent
Hemocompatibility: A Comprehensive Review. Materials, 2023. 16(21): p.6940.
115. Frei, B. and J.V.Higdon, Antioxidant activity of tea polyphenols invivo: evidence from ani-
mal studies. The Journal of nutrition, 2003. 133(10): p.3275S–3284S.
116. Nyska, A., et al., Histopathology of biodegradable polymers: Challenges in interpretation
and the use of a novel compact MRI for biocompatibility evaluation. Polymers for advanced
technologies, 2014. 25(5): p.461–467.
117. Nasu, K., et al., Accuracy of invivo coronary plaque morphology assessment: a valida-
tion study of invivo virtual histology compared with invitro histopathology. Journal of the
American College of Cardiology, 2006. 47(12): p.2405–2412.
118. Alonso-Fernández, I., etal., Use of 3D-printed polylactic acid/bioceramic composite scaf-
folds for bone tissue engineering in preclinical invivo studies: A systematic review. Acta
Biomaterialia, 2023. 168: p.1–21.
119. Kreiss, A., etal., Assessment of cellular immune responses of healthy and diseased Tasmanian
devils (Sarcophilus harrisii). Developmental & Comparative Immunology, 2008. 32(5):
p.544–553.
120. Angelidaki, I. and W.Sanders, Assessment of the anaerobic biodegradability of macropollut-
ants. Re/Views in Environmental Science & Bio/Technology, 2004. 3: p.117–129.
121. Bombach, P., etal., Current approaches for the assessment of in situ biodegradation. Applied
microbiology and biotechnology, 2010. 86: p.839–852.
122. Jayasekara, R., etal., Biodegradability of a selected range of polymers and polymer blends
and standard methods for assessment of biodegradation. Journal of Polymers and the
Environment, 2005. 13: p.231–251.
123. Shtansky, D.V. and M.Roy, Surface engineering for biotribological application, in Surface
Engineering for Enhanced Performance against Wear. 2013, Springer. p.277–310.
124. Sánchez-Bodón, J., etal., Strategies to Enhance Biomedical Device Performance and Safety:
A Comprehensive Review. Coatings, 2023. 13(12): p.1981.
125. Rosenkranz, A., etal., Surface texturing in machine elements− a critical discussion for roll-
ing and sliding contacts. Advanced Engineering Materials, 2019. 21(8): p.1900194.
126. Wan, H., etal., A polyethylene glycol functionalized hyaluronic acid coating for cardiovascu-
lar catheter lubrication. Materials & Design, 2020. 196: p.109080.
127. Kazmierska, K.A. and T.Ciach, Bioactive coatings for minimally invasive medical devices:
Surface modication in the service of medicine. Recent Patents on Biomedical Engineering
(Discontinued), 2009. 2(1): p.1–14.
128. Wagner, R.M.F., etal., Bio-tribology of vascular devices: A review of tissue/device friction
research. Biotribology, 2021. 25: p.100169.
129. Tran, P.A., et al., Coatings on metallic implants for biomedical applications, in Metallic
Biomaterials Processing and Medical Device Manufacturing. 2020, Elsevier. p.359–385.
130. Fuentes, E., et al., Advanced surface treatments on titanium and titanium alloys focused
on electrochemical and physical technologies for biomedical applications. Biomaterialsupported Tissue Reconstruction or Regeneration, 2019.
131. Bauer, S., etal., Engineering biocompatible implant surfaces: Part I: Materials and surfaces.
Progress in Materials Science, 2013. 58(3): p.261–326.
132. Paiva, J.C.C., etal., Biodegradable bone implants as a new hope to reduce device-associated
infections—a systematic review. Bioengineering, 2022. 9(8): p.409.
A. K. Gupta et al.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
