METHODS: We did a non-systematic review, and the literature was searched in Google, Science Direct and PubMed. An overview is provided for the formulation of polymeric nanoparticles using different methods, effect of surface modification on the nanoparticle properties with types of polymeric nanoparticles and preparation methods. An account of different nanomedicine employed with therapeutic agent to cross the BBB alone with biodistribution of the drugs.
RESULTS: We found that various types of polymeric nanoparticle systems are available and they prosper in delivering the therapeutic amount of the drug to the targeted area. The effect of physicochemical properties on nanoformulation includes change in their size, shape, elasticity, surface charge and hydrophobicity. Surface modification of polymers or nanocarriers is also vital in the formulation of nanoparticles to enhance targeting efficiency to the brain.
CONCLUSION: More standardized methods for the preparation of nanoparticles and to assess the relationship of surface modification on drug delivery. While the preparation and its output like drug loading, particle size, and charge, permeation is always conflicted, so it requires more attention for the acceptance of nanoparticles for brain delivery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty Turkom-Cera ceramic disks (10 mm × 3 mm) were prepared and randomly divided into four groups. The disks were wet ground to 1000-grit and subjected to four surface treatments: (1) No treatment (Control), (2) sandblasting, (3) silane application, and (4) sandblasting + silane. The four groups of 10 specimens each were bonded with Panavia-F resin cement according to manufacturer's recommendations. The SBS was determined using the universal testing machine (Instron) at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Failure modes were recorded and a qualitative micromorphologic examination of different surface treatments was performed. The data were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) tests.
RESULTS: The SBS of the control, sandblasting, silane, and sandblasting + silane groups were: 10.8 ± 1.5, 16.4 ± 3.4, 16.2 ± 2.5, and 19.1 ± 2.4 MPa respectively. According to the Tukey HSD test, only the mean SBS of the control group was significantly different from the other three groups. There was no significant difference between sandblasting, silane, and sandblasting + silane groups.
CONCLUSION: In this study, the three surface treatments used improved the bond strength of resin cement to Turkom-Cera disks.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The surface treatments used in this study appeared to be suitable methods for the cementation of glass infiltrated all-ceramic restorations.