Добавил:
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_5881_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
23 Мб
Скачать
10 Composites forDrug-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 andToxicity 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 andPredictable Release Proles
Ensuring precise and controlled drug release from composite-based devices pres­ents a signicant challenge. Achieving a predictable release prole over the desired timeframe, without the risk of burst release or erratic kinetics, is crucial for thera­peutic efcacy. 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 andDurability
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 modications 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 andManufacturing 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 ofAdvanced 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-specic composite-based drug delivery devices [249].
10.7.1.6 Multifunctionality andCombination 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 andFuture Directions inResearch
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 proles [252258]. This emerging trend seeks to leverage the unique properties of nanoscale materials to rene drug delivery efciency, 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 forDrug-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 specic 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 signicant promise. Researchers are exploring ways to tai­lor drug release proles based on individual patient characteristics, genetic informa­tion, and disease progression [261]. This involves developing patient-specic 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 redene 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 efcacy and enabling adjustments to therapeutic strategies based on real­time feedback. Articial 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 proles, and accelerating development. This trend has the potential to streamline the design of composite devices, enhance their per­formance, and facilitate more efcient 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 [266271].

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 signicance of release mecha­nisms, toxic evaluation, and biocompatibility assessment in ensuring the efcacy 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, invivo imaging, inamma­tory response assessment, and other analyses, were discussed in detail. These methods provide valuable insights into the composition, performance, and efcacy 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 identied emerging trends and future directions in research, including multifunctionality and combina­tion therapies, which hold promise for further enhancing the performance and
10 Composites forDrug-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., etal., 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., etal., Phytochemicals in prostate cancer: from bioactive molecules to upcoming therapeutic agents. Nutrients, 2019. 11(7): p.1483.
5. Atkinson, C., etal., 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.Grifths, 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., etal., 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., etal., Heart targeted nanoliposomal/nanoparticles drug delivery: An updated review. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 2017. 86: p.316–323.
15. Herdeg, C., etal., 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., etal., 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., etal., Rening 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., etal., 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., etal., Targeted agents and immunotherapies: optimizing outcomes in melanoma. Nature reviews Clinical oncology, 2017. 14(8): p.463–482.
24. Arora, A., etal., 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., etal., 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., etal., 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., etal., A review on composite liposomal technologies for specialized drug delivery. Journal of drug delivery, 2011. 2011.
32. Singh, A.P., etal., 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-specic release. Molecules, 2019. 24(6): p.1117.
34. Yang, P., etal., 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., etal., 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., etal., 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 forDrug-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., etal., Gentamicin-eluting bioresorbable composite bers for wound healing applications. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A: An Ofcial 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., etal., 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., etal., 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., etal., Synthesis and characterization of bio-composite nanober for controlled drug release. Journal of environmental chemical engineering, 2017. 5(6): p.5843–5849.
48. Parra-Nieto, J., etal., 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., etal., 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., etal., Role of nanoparticle mechanical properties in cancer drug delivery. ACS nano,
2019. 13(7): p.7410–7424.
57. Naik, K., etal., 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., etal. 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 inammation, 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., etal., Biocompatibility of nanomaterials and their immunological proper- ties. Biomedical Materials, 2021. 16(4): p.042005.
68. Garvin, K.L., etal., 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 Ofcial 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., etal., Penetration of ciprooxacin into bone: a new bioabsorbable implant. Journal of Investigative Surgery, 1995. 8(3): p.155–162.
71. Nie, L., etal., In vitro elution of ooxacin from a bioabsorbable polymer. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 1995. 66(4): p.365–368.
72. Rutledge, B., etal., 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., etal., 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: invitro antibiotic release. Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition, 2001. 12(2): p.195–207.
75. Rossi, S., A.O.Azghani, and A.Omri, Antimicrobial efcacy 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., etal., 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., etal., 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., etal., 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., etal., 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 forDrug-Eluting Devices: Emerging Biomedical Applications
87. Rai, M., etal., 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., etal., Nano based drug delivery systems: recent developments and future pros- pects. Journal of nanobiotechnology, 2018. 16(1): p.1–33.
89. Jacob, J., etal., Biopolymer based nanomaterials in drug delivery systems: A review. Materials today chemistry, 2018. 9: p.43–55.
90. Seunarine, K., etal., 3D polymer scaffolds for tissue engineering. 2006.
91. Neffe, A.T., etal., 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., etal., Magnesium Sublimation for Growing Thin Films and Conformal Coatings on 1D Nanostructures. Nanomanufacturing, 2022. 2(4): p.186–193.
94. Chakraborty, S., etal., Nanomechanical properties of mechanically alloyed and spark plasma sintered W-nanoparticulate dispersed Cu-Nb alloys. Materials Letters, 2020. 274: p.128004.
95. Chen, J., etal., 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., etal., 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, Modied 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., etal., 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., etal., 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., etal., 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., etal., 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., Identication of a key pathway required for the sterile inammatory response triggered by dying cells. Nature medicine, 2007. 13(7): p.851–856.
108. Armentano, I., etal., 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 Ofcial 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 invivo: 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 invivo coronary plaque morphology assessment: a valida- tion study of invivo virtual histology compared with invitro histopathology. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2006. 47(12): p.2405–2412.
118. Alonso-Fernández, I., etal., Use of 3D-printed polylactic acid/bioceramic composite scaf- folds for bone tissue engineering in preclinical invivo studies: A systematic review. Acta Biomaterialia, 2023. 168: p.1–21.
119. Kreiss, A., etal., 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., etal., Current approaches for the assessment of in situ biodegradation. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2010. 86: p.839–852.
122. Jayasekara, R., etal., 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., etal., Strategies to Enhance Biomedical Device Performance and Safety: A Comprehensive Review. Coatings, 2023. 13(12): p.1981.
125. Rosenkranz, A., etal., 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., etal., 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 modication in the service of medicine. Recent Patents on Biomedical Engineering (Discontinued), 2009. 2(1): p.1–14.
128. Wagner, R.M.F., etal., 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., etal., Engineering biocompatible implant surfaces: Part I: Materials and surfaces. Progress in Materials Science, 2013. 58(3): p.261–326.
132. Paiva, J.C.C., etal., 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