Fig 1.
Stages of preparation of BC-coated Ti6Al7Nb scaffold.
(A)—native Ti6Al7Nb scaffold; (B)—implant coated with unpurified BC; (C)—BC-coated implant after removal of media leftover and bacteria; (D)—BC-coated Ti6Al7Nb scaffold after partial drying.
Fig 2.
Visualization of cellulose covering (A) and ingrowing (B) the pores of Ti6Al7Nb implant.
The area marked by a red circle in (A) is visualized with higher magnification in (B). The cellulose seen in (A) was intentionally mechanically disrupted (as seen in the middle of the picture) to uncover the underlying implant’s struts. Magn. 51x and 318, respectively. Zeiss EVO MA SEM Microscope. Please also refer to S3 Fig to see more Ti6Al7Nb implants with partially removed cellulose.
Fig 3.
Cytotoxicity of BC-coated Ti6Al7Nb scaffolds vs. non-coated Ti6Al7Nb native scaffolds for fibroblasts and osteoblasts after 24 and 48 h of incubation.
BCS—BC-coated Ti6Al7Nb scaffolds; NS—non-coated Ti6Al7Nb native scaffolds; Asterisks mark statistically significant differences (M-W test, p<0.5) between particular columns.
Fig 4.
Fibroblasts colonizing bacterial cellulose membrane.
Cellulose is visualized using laser reflection (shown in red) (A), while fibroblasts are fluorescently labeled (shown in green) (B). Merged channels are presented in (C) (view from the top), (D) and (E) (side views). The imaging was performed on a Leica SP8 confocal microscope.
Table 1.
Inhibition zones of S. aureus with regard to type of implant and antibiotic concentration applied.
Fig 5.
No negative impact of the procedures applied on implant structure.
Structure of the implants coated with cellulose and subjected to a temperature of 80°C (after cellulose removal) under (A) 105x and (B) 2060x magnification, respectively. Zeiss EVO MA SEM Microscope.