OBJECTIVE: With distinct optical attributes (e.g., robust photostability, restricted emission spectra, tunable broad excitation, and high quantum output), fluorescent quantum dots (QDs) have been feasibly functionalized with manageable interfaces and considerably utilized as a new class of optical probe in biological investigations.
METHODS: In this review article, we structured the current advancements in the preparation methods and attributes of QDs. Furthermore, we extend an overview of the outstanding potential of QDs for biomedical research and radical approaches to drug delivery.
CONCLUSION: Notably, the applications of QDs as smart next-generation nanosystems for neuroscience and pharmacokinetic studies have been explained. Moreover, recent interests in the potential toxicity of QDs are also apprised, ranging from cell investigations to animal studies.
MATERIALS & METHODS: F-BC-MTX-LPHNPs were fabricated using self-assembled nano-precipitation technique. Fructose was conjugated on the surface of the particles. The in vitro cytotoxicity, sub-cellular localization and apoptotic activity of F-BC-MTX-LPHNPs were evaluated against MCF-7 breast cancer cells. The antitumor potential of F-BC-MTX-LPHNPs was further studied.
RESULTS & CONCLUSION: Outcomes suggested that F-BC-MTX-LPHNPs induced the highest apoptosis index (0.89) against MCF-7 cells. Following 30 days of treatment, the residual tumor progression was assessed to be approximately 32%, in animals treated with F-BC-MTX-LPHNPs. F-BC-MTX-LPHNPs are competent to selectively convey the chemotherapeutic agent to the breast cancers. Beta carotene ameliorated MTX-induced hepatic and renal toxicity.
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: A gypsum mold was coated with clear acrylic spray. The coated mold was then used to produce modified silicone experimental specimens (n = 35). The surface roughness of the modified silicone elastomers was compared with that of the control specimens, which were prepared by conventional flasking methods (n = 35). An atomic force microscope (AFM) was used for surface roughness measurement of silicone elastomer (unmodified and modified), and a scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to evaluate the topographic conditions of coated and noncoated gypsum and silicone elastomer specimens (unmodified and modified) groups. After the gypsum molds were characterized, the fabricated silicone elastomers molded on noncoated and coated gypsum materials were evaluated further. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analysis of gypsum materials (noncoated and coated) and silicone elastomer specimens (unmodified and modified) was performed to evaluate the elemental changes after coating was conducted. Independent t test was used to analyze the differences in the surface roughness of unmodified and modified silicone at a significance level of p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Roughness was significantly reduced in the silicone elastomers processed against coated gypsum materials (p < 0.001). The AFM and SEM analysis results showed evident differences in surface smoothness. EDX data further revealed the presence of the desired chemical components on the surface layer of unmodified and modified silicone elastomers.
CONCLUSIONS: Silicone elastomers with lower surface roughness of maxillofacial prostheses can be obtained simply by coating a gypsum mold.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candida albicans, Streptococcus mutans, and Staphylococcus aureus were incubated with modified and unmodified silicone groups (N = 35) for 30 days at 37°C. The counts of viable microorganisms in the accumulating biofilm layer were determined and converted to cfu/cm2 unit surface area. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to evaluate the microbial adhesion. Statistical analysis was performed using t-test, one-way ANOVA, and post hoc tests as indicated.
RESULTS: Significant differences in microbial adhesion were observed between modified and unmodified silicone elastomers after the cells were incubated for 30 days (p < 0.001). SEM showed evident differences in microbial adhesion on modified silicone elastomer compared with unmodified silicone elastomer.
CONCLUSIONS: Surface modification of silicone elastomer yielding a smoother and less porous surface showed lower adhesion of different microorganisms than observed on unmodified surfaces.