Methods: The nanoemulsions were formulated using a high-pressure homogenization technique and were characterized for their physicochemical properties.
Results: The characterizations revealed a particle size of 100.32±0.75 nm, polydispersity index of 0.18±0.01, zeta potential of -46.9±1.39 mV, viscosity of 1.24±0.34 cps, and osmolality of 285.33±0.58 mOsm/kg, indicating that the nanoemulsion has compatibility for parenteral application. CLN was physicochemically stable within 6 months of storage at 4°C, and the transmission electron microscopy revealed that the CLN droplets were almost spherical in shape. The in vitro release of CLN profile followed a sustained release pattern. The pharmacokinetic profile of CLN showed a significantly higher Cmax, area under the curve (AUC)0-
t
, prolonged half-life, and lower total plasma clearance, indicating that the systemic concentration of cefuroxime was higher in CLN-treated rats as compared to cefuroxime-free treated rats. A similar profile was obtained for the biodistribution of cefuroxime in the brain, in which CLN showed a significantly higher Cmax, AUC0-
t
, prolonged half-life, and lower clearance as compared to free cefuroxime solution.
Conclusion: Overall, CLN showed excellent physicochemical properties, fulfilled the requirements for parenteral administration, and presented improved in vivo pharmacokinetic profile, which reflected its practical approach to enhance cefuroxime delivery to the brain.
Methods: A three-unit bridge master model was fabricated using cold-cure acrylic resin. Four combinations of different viscosities of PVS impression materials - regular body (monophase) alone, light body with regular body, light body with heavy body, and light body with putty - were used to make an impression of the master model. Ten impressions from each group were taken and Type IV gypsum stone was used to generate the dies. The dies were measured at the inter-abutment distance, occlusogingival length, and shoulder width with a measuring microscope and were compared with the master model using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey (honest significant difference) test.
Results: Differences were found for inter-abutment distance between the master model and the light body with regular body and light body with putty dies (both P < 0.02). A difference was found for shoulder width between the master model and the regular body alone die (P = 0.01). No differences were found for occlusogingival distance (all P > 0.08).
Conclusion: Results suggested inter-abutment distance was most accurate when using a PVS light body combination. Occlusogingival length was accurate using any of the studied PVS combinations, and shoulder width was more accurate when using the regular body PVS.
Relevance for patients: These results should be considered when choosing the viscosity of the PVS to use for producing impressions of high accuracy and fabricating a well-fitting fixed prosthesis.