Loading…

Physical, mechanical, and biocompatibility evaluation of three different types of silicone rubber

Silicone rubber as a valuable biomaterial is widely used in medical applications, but its surface properties and low wettability make serious problems in long‐term implants. This work was undertaken to evaluate the biocompatibility of modified silicone rubber using two different techniques. A blend...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of applied polymer science 2003-06, Vol.88 (10), p.2522-2529
Main Authors: Fallahi, D., Mirzadeh, H., Khorasani, M. T.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4032-e05643dcc6d3a855b33ab5b0c37b8e11057a55f34b2767f894eb5e2e72db3f823
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4032-e05643dcc6d3a855b33ab5b0c37b8e11057a55f34b2767f894eb5e2e72db3f823
container_end_page 2529
container_issue 10
container_start_page 2522
container_title Journal of applied polymer science
container_volume 88
creator Fallahi, D.
Mirzadeh, H.
Khorasani, M. T.
description Silicone rubber as a valuable biomaterial is widely used in medical applications, but its surface properties and low wettability make serious problems in long‐term implants. This work was undertaken to evaluate the biocompatibility of modified silicone rubber using two different techniques. A blend of poly(acrylamide) and silicone rubber was compared with virgin silicone surfaces as well as with those modified by laser treatment. Physical and mechanical properties of the samples were examined using different techniques. The hydrophilicity of the silicone rubber increased with increasing hydrogel content and decreased as a result of laser treatment. Both fibroblast cell (L929) and platelet behavior in contact with these surfaces were evaluated in vitro. The morphology of fibroblast cells that adhered to the blends was similar to the control. In contrast, on the laser‐treated surfaces fibroblast cells showed different proliferation. On the other hand, fewer platelets adhered to the laser‐treated surface than adhered to the blend and the unmodified PDMS surfaces. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 88: 2522–2529, 2003
doi_str_mv 10.1002/app.11952
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_27931315</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>27931315</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4032-e05643dcc6d3a855b33ab5b0c37b8e11057a55f34b2767f894eb5e2e72db3f823</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1v1DAQhi1EJZaWA_8gF5CQyNYfsZ0ctxHdVqzKIoGWm2U7Y60hX7WTQv49KVng1NPMaJ73ObwIvSZ4TTCml7rv14QUnD5DK4ILmWaC5s_Rav6RNC8K_gK9jPE7xoRwLFZI749T9FbX75MG7FG3y67bKjG-s13T68EbX_thSuBB1-N8dm3SuWQ4BoCk8s5BgHZIhqmH-PiIM227FpIwGgPhAp05XUd4dZrn6Ov1hy_lTbr7tL0tN7vUZpjRFDAXGausFRXTOeeGMW24wZZJkwMhmEvNuWOZoVJIlxcZGA4UJK0Mczll5-jt4u1Ddz9CHFTjo4W61i10Y1RUFowwwmfw3QLa0MUYwKk--EaHSRGsHktUc4nqT4kz--Yk1XEuxgXdWh__BzIhsgLLmbtcuJ--hulpodrs93_N6ZLwcYBf_xI6_FBCMsnV4W6rrq7Kj59FeVDf2G8rSpCE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>27931315</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Physical, mechanical, and biocompatibility evaluation of three different types of silicone rubber</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Fallahi, D. ; Mirzadeh, H. ; Khorasani, M. T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fallahi, D. ; Mirzadeh, H. ; Khorasani, M. T.</creatorcontrib><description>Silicone rubber as a valuable biomaterial is widely used in medical applications, but its surface properties and low wettability make serious problems in long‐term implants. This work was undertaken to evaluate the biocompatibility of modified silicone rubber using two different techniques. A blend of poly(acrylamide) and silicone rubber was compared with virgin silicone surfaces as well as with those modified by laser treatment. Physical and mechanical properties of the samples were examined using different techniques. The hydrophilicity of the silicone rubber increased with increasing hydrogel content and decreased as a result of laser treatment. Both fibroblast cell (L929) and platelet behavior in contact with these surfaces were evaluated in vitro. The morphology of fibroblast cells that adhered to the blends was similar to the control. In contrast, on the laser‐treated surfaces fibroblast cells showed different proliferation. On the other hand, fewer platelets adhered to the laser‐treated surface than adhered to the blend and the unmodified PDMS surfaces. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 88: 2522–2529, 2003</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8995</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-4628</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/app.11952</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JAPNAB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Applied sciences ; biocompatibility ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biological properties ; Biotechnology ; blends ; Exact sciences and technology ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; hydrophilicity ; Organic polymers ; Physicochemistry of polymers ; poly(acrylamide) ; Polymer industry, paints, wood ; Properties and characterization ; Properties and testing ; silicones ; Solution and gel properties ; Technology of polymers</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied polymer science, 2003-06, Vol.88 (10), p.2522-2529</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2003 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4032-e05643dcc6d3a855b33ab5b0c37b8e11057a55f34b2767f894eb5e2e72db3f823</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4032-e05643dcc6d3a855b33ab5b0c37b8e11057a55f34b2767f894eb5e2e72db3f823</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=14664907$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fallahi, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mirzadeh, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khorasani, M. T.</creatorcontrib><title>Physical, mechanical, and biocompatibility evaluation of three different types of silicone rubber</title><title>Journal of applied polymer science</title><addtitle>J. Appl. Polym. Sci</addtitle><description>Silicone rubber as a valuable biomaterial is widely used in medical applications, but its surface properties and low wettability make serious problems in long‐term implants. This work was undertaken to evaluate the biocompatibility of modified silicone rubber using two different techniques. A blend of poly(acrylamide) and silicone rubber was compared with virgin silicone surfaces as well as with those modified by laser treatment. Physical and mechanical properties of the samples were examined using different techniques. The hydrophilicity of the silicone rubber increased with increasing hydrogel content and decreased as a result of laser treatment. Both fibroblast cell (L929) and platelet behavior in contact with these surfaces were evaluated in vitro. The morphology of fibroblast cells that adhered to the blends was similar to the control. In contrast, on the laser‐treated surfaces fibroblast cells showed different proliferation. On the other hand, fewer platelets adhered to the laser‐treated surface than adhered to the blend and the unmodified PDMS surfaces. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 88: 2522–2529, 2003</description><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>biocompatibility</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biological properties</subject><subject>Biotechnology</subject><subject>blends</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>hydrophilicity</subject><subject>Organic polymers</subject><subject>Physicochemistry of polymers</subject><subject>poly(acrylamide)</subject><subject>Polymer industry, paints, wood</subject><subject>Properties and characterization</subject><subject>Properties and testing</subject><subject>silicones</subject><subject>Solution and gel properties</subject><subject>Technology of polymers</subject><issn>0021-8995</issn><issn>1097-4628</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1v1DAQhi1EJZaWA_8gF5CQyNYfsZ0ctxHdVqzKIoGWm2U7Y60hX7WTQv49KVng1NPMaJ73ObwIvSZ4TTCml7rv14QUnD5DK4ILmWaC5s_Rav6RNC8K_gK9jPE7xoRwLFZI749T9FbX75MG7FG3y67bKjG-s13T68EbX_thSuBB1-N8dm3SuWQ4BoCk8s5BgHZIhqmH-PiIM227FpIwGgPhAp05XUd4dZrn6Ov1hy_lTbr7tL0tN7vUZpjRFDAXGausFRXTOeeGMW24wZZJkwMhmEvNuWOZoVJIlxcZGA4UJK0Mczll5-jt4u1Ddz9CHFTjo4W61i10Y1RUFowwwmfw3QLa0MUYwKk--EaHSRGsHktUc4nqT4kz--Yk1XEuxgXdWh__BzIhsgLLmbtcuJ--hulpodrs93_N6ZLwcYBf_xI6_FBCMsnV4W6rrq7Kj59FeVDf2G8rSpCE</recordid><startdate>20030606</startdate><enddate>20030606</enddate><creator>Fallahi, D.</creator><creator>Mirzadeh, H.</creator><creator>Khorasani, M. T.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030606</creationdate><title>Physical, mechanical, and biocompatibility evaluation of three different types of silicone rubber</title><author>Fallahi, D. ; Mirzadeh, H. ; Khorasani, M. T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4032-e05643dcc6d3a855b33ab5b0c37b8e11057a55f34b2767f894eb5e2e72db3f823</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>biocompatibility</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biological properties</topic><topic>Biotechnology</topic><topic>blends</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>hydrophilicity</topic><topic>Organic polymers</topic><topic>Physicochemistry of polymers</topic><topic>poly(acrylamide)</topic><topic>Polymer industry, paints, wood</topic><topic>Properties and characterization</topic><topic>Properties and testing</topic><topic>silicones</topic><topic>Solution and gel properties</topic><topic>Technology of polymers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fallahi, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mirzadeh, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khorasani, M. T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied polymer science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fallahi, D.</au><au>Mirzadeh, H.</au><au>Khorasani, M. T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Physical, mechanical, and biocompatibility evaluation of three different types of silicone rubber</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied polymer science</jtitle><addtitle>J. Appl. Polym. Sci</addtitle><date>2003-06-06</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>88</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2522</spage><epage>2529</epage><pages>2522-2529</pages><issn>0021-8995</issn><eissn>1097-4628</eissn><coden>JAPNAB</coden><abstract>Silicone rubber as a valuable biomaterial is widely used in medical applications, but its surface properties and low wettability make serious problems in long‐term implants. This work was undertaken to evaluate the biocompatibility of modified silicone rubber using two different techniques. A blend of poly(acrylamide) and silicone rubber was compared with virgin silicone surfaces as well as with those modified by laser treatment. Physical and mechanical properties of the samples were examined using different techniques. The hydrophilicity of the silicone rubber increased with increasing hydrogel content and decreased as a result of laser treatment. Both fibroblast cell (L929) and platelet behavior in contact with these surfaces were evaluated in vitro. The morphology of fibroblast cells that adhered to the blends was similar to the control. In contrast, on the laser‐treated surfaces fibroblast cells showed different proliferation. On the other hand, fewer platelets adhered to the laser‐treated surface than adhered to the blend and the unmodified PDMS surfaces. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 88: 2522–2529, 2003</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><doi>10.1002/app.11952</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8995
ispartof Journal of applied polymer science, 2003-06, Vol.88 (10), p.2522-2529
issn 0021-8995
1097-4628
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_27931315
source Wiley
subjects Applied sciences
biocompatibility
Biological and medical sciences
Biological properties
Biotechnology
blends
Exact sciences and technology
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
hydrophilicity
Organic polymers
Physicochemistry of polymers
poly(acrylamide)
Polymer industry, paints, wood
Properties and characterization
Properties and testing
silicones
Solution and gel properties
Technology of polymers
title Physical, mechanical, and biocompatibility evaluation of three different types of silicone rubber
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T09%3A07%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Physical,%20mechanical,%20and%20biocompatibility%20evaluation%20of%20three%20different%20types%20of%20silicone%20rubber&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20polymer%20science&rft.au=Fallahi,%20D.&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=88&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2522&rft.epage=2529&rft.pages=2522-2529&rft.issn=0021-8995&rft.eissn=1097-4628&rft.coden=JAPNAB&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/app.11952&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E27931315%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4032-e05643dcc6d3a855b33ab5b0c37b8e11057a55f34b2767f894eb5e2e72db3f823%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=27931315&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true