METHODS: In the present study, graphene oxide-polyethylene glycol (GOPEG) nanocarrier is designed and loaded with two anticancer drugs; Protocatechuic acid (PCA) and Chlorogenic acid (CA). The designed anticancer nanocomposite was further coated with folic acid to target the cancer cells, as their surface membranes are overexpressed with folate receptors.
RESULTS: The particle size distribution of the designed nanocomposite was found to be narrow, 9-40 nm. The release profiles of the loaded drugs; PCA and CA was conducted in human body simulated PBS solutions of pH 7.4 (blood pH) and pH 4.8 (intracellular lysosomal pH). Anticancer properties were evaluated against cancerous cells i.e. liver cancer, HEPG2 and human colon cancer, HT-29 cells. The cytocompatbility was assessed on normal 3T3 fibroblasts cells.
CONCLUSION: The size of the final designed anticancer nanocomposite formulation, GOPEG-PCACA-FA was found to be distributed at 9-40 nm with a median of 8 nm. The in vitro release of the drugs PCA and CA was found to be of sustained manner which took more than 100 h for the release. Furthermore, the designed formulation was biocompatible with normal 3T3 cells and showed strong anticancer activity against liver and colon cancer cells.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sandblasted and cleansed planar titanium specimens with a size of 5 × 5 × 1 mm were coated on one side with 0.25 vol% eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). The other side of the specimens was kept highly polished (the control side). These specimens were inserted in rabbit mandibles. Twelve rabbits were randomly assigned into three study groups (n = 4). The rabbits were sacrificed at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The harvested specimens with the implants were assessed for new bone formation on both sides of the implant using CBCT, conventional radiographs, and the biaxial pullout test. The results were statistically analyzed by a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test and Friedman's test as multiple comparisons and by Brunner-Langer nonparametric mixed model approach (R Software).
RESULTS: A significant osteoconductive bone formation was found on the EPA-coated Ti implant surface (P < 0.05) at 8 weeks when compared to the polished surface (control). Biaxial pullout test results showed a significant difference (P < 0.05) after 8 and 12 weeks with a maximum force of 243.8 N, compared to 143.25 N after 4 week.
CONCLUSION: EPA implant coating promoted osteoconduction on the Ti implant surfaces, enhancing the anchorage of the implant to the surrounding bone in white New Zealand rabbits.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a stainless-steel mold, disc-shaped wax patterns with dimensions of 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick (in accordance with ADA Specification No. 12) were created and prepared for a total of 75 acrylic samples. Dimensions of all 75 acrylic samples were checked with a digital Vernier caliper. About 25 samples of denture base material were immersed in three different chemical disinfectants: Group I: immersed in chlorhexidine gluconate solution, group II: immersed in sodium hypochlorite solution, and group III: immersed in glutaraldehyde solution. All samples were scrubbed daily for 1 minute with the appropriate disinfectant and submerged for 10 minutes in the same disinfectant. Between disinfection cycles, samples were kept in distilled water at 37°C. Color stability was measured using a reflection spectrophotometer. Surface roughness values were measured by a profilometer at baseline following 15 days and 30 days.
RESULTS: After 15 days, the color stability was better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (4.88 ± 0.24) than sodium hypochlorite solution (4.74 ± 0.18) and glutaraldehyde solution group (4.46 ± 0.16). The mean surface roughness was less in glutaraldehyde solution group (2.10 ± 0.19), followed by chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (2.48 ± 0.09) and sodium hypochlorite solution group (2.64 ± 0.03). After 30 days, the color stability was significantly better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (4.40 ± 0.02), followed by sodium hypochlorite solution (4.06 ± 0.16) and glutaraldehyde solution group (3.87 ± 0.17). The mean surface roughness was significantly lesser in glutaraldehyde solution group (2.41 ± 0.14), followed by chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (2.94 ± 0.08) and sodium hypochlorite solution group (3.02 ± 0.13).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the color stability was significantly better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group than sodium hypochlorite solution and glutaraldehyde solution group. But the surface roughness was significantly lesser in the glutaraldehyde solution group, followed by the chlorhexidine gluconate and sodium hypochlorite solution group.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The maintenance of the prosthesis requires the use of a denture disinfectant; therefore, it is crucial to select one that is effective but would not have a negative impact on the denture base resin's inherent characteristics over time. How to cite this article: Kannaiyan K, Rakshit P, Bhat MPS, et al. Effect of Different Disinfecting Agents on Surface Roughness and Color Stability of Heat-cure Acrylic Denture Material: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(11):891-894.
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.