title: In Vitro Parallel Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity and Cytotoxicity of Commercially Available Silver-Containing Wound Dressings.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study evaluated the in vitro antibacterial activity and cytotoxicity of various commercially available silver-containing dressings (Ag dressing).
  
  
  METHODS
  Biohesive Ag (hydrocolloid, silver sulfadiazine), Aquacel® Ag (nonwoven fabric, ionic silver [Ag]), Algisite™ Ag (nonwoven fabric, Ag), Mepilex® Ag (foam, silver sulfate), and PolyMem® Ag (foam, nanocrystalline silver) were tested for characteristics of Ag release, antibacterial activity, and cytotoxicity. The release of Ag was investigated in cell culture medium at immersion periods of 6, 24, and 48 hours. The antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were accessed by a disc diffusion test. The cytotoxicity was evaluated using V79 cells, by an extraction method.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The cytotoxicity was not a monotonic function of the antibacterial activity among the Ag dressings and could not be simply explained by Ag-release properties. Biohesive Ag was regarded as a slow-release Ag dressing, showing the lowest cytotoxicity, while the antibacterial activity was classified as "strong" or "significant" against the two species of bacteria. Aquacel Ag and Algisite Ag showed higher antibacterial activity and cytotoxic effects, which were supported by the higher Ag release. Mepilex Ag showed the highest release of Ag, and the cytotoxicity was the highest among the Ag dressings. However, the antibacterial activity was classified as "significant" or "no activity" for P. aeruginosa and S. aureus, respectively. PolyMem Ag showed the lowest Ag release, and the antibacterial activity classified as "significant" or "no activity" for S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, respectively, whereas the cytotoxicity was similar to those of Aquacel Ag and Algisite Ag.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The efficacy and adverse effects of the Ag dressings revealed differences that should be considered by clinicians during wound management.
authors.affiliation: 1Biotechnology Group, Tokyo Metropolitan Industrial Technology Research Institute. 2Medical Engineering Laboratory, ALCARECo., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan.
authors.forename: Shunji
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Yunoki
authors.forename: Masushi
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Kohta
authors.forename: Yoshimi
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Ohyabu
authors.forename: Tetsuji
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Iwasaki
mesh_terms: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D000903:Antibiotics, Antineoplastic / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001458:Bandages / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000592:standards*; D002056:Burns / Q000150:complications / Q000628:therapy; D006801:Humans; D011550:Pseudomonas aeruginosa / Q000254:growth & development / Q000472:pathogenicity; D012834:Silver / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D013211:Staphylococcus aureus / Q000254:growth & development / Q000472:pathogenicity; D014945:Wound Healing / Q000187:drug effects*
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D000903:Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; D012834:Silver