IndraLab

"The CAM-PCL/PEO dressing was statistically more effective in inhibiting biofilm formation than the CAM-PCL dressing."

"As shown before for the CAM-PCL/PEO dressing, 90% of the drug is released in the first 60 min, but for the CAM-PCL dressing, the amount of drug released is only 40% after 24 h and up to 50% after 48 h. xref Therefore, the available drug concentration after 24 h of treatment is different, being higher when using the CAM-PCL/PEO dressing."

"Differences between formulations were also observed: the inhibition of biofilm bacteria was more significant for CAM-PCL/PEO than for CAM-PCL wound dressings ( xref )."

"Even though the drug load is the same for both formulations, the faster CAM release from CAM-PCL/PEO wound dressing and therefore higher amount of drug at the site of action at the beginning of the treatment was perhaps beneficial in this case."

"CAM-loaded ES wound dressings (CAM-PCL and CAM-PCL/PEO) and pristine wound dressings (PCL and PCL/PEO) were cut into 1 × 1 cm samples under aseptic conditions under a laminar-flow hood."

"As previously shown, the drug release kinetics into 10 mL 1 × PBS differ between the two wound dressings, although no differences in the disk diffusion assay (release into the gel) were seen. xref Interestingly, previously reported biofilm assays revealed that the CAM-PCL dressing was more effective compared with the CAM-PCL/PEO dressing on E. coli CFT073, most likely due to the different release kinetics. xref In the current assay, both formulations with the same drug load exhibited a similar antibiofilm effect, as a 6-log difference was observed in bacterial numbers for E. coli and S. epidermidis ( xref A,C)."