MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty test specimens were fabricated according to the manufacturer's instructions into rectangular test specimens. The hardness and surface roughness were tested, after 6 months of exposure to natural hot and dry weather. The hardness was measured through the International Rubber Hardness Degree (IRHD) scale using an automated hardness tester. The surface roughness was measured using a novel 3D optical noncontact technique using a combination of a light sectioning microscope and a computer vision system. Statistical Package for Social Sciences software SPSS/version 24 was used for analysis and a comparison between two independent variables was done using an independent t test, while more than two variables were analyzed, F test (ANOVA) to be used followed by a post hoc test to determine the level of significance between every two groups.
RESULTS: The hot and dry weather statistically influenced the hardness and surface roughness of MFSEM. Cosmesil M-511 showed the least hardness in test groups while A-2000 showed the hardest material (p < 0.05). A-2000 showed significant changes from rough in case of nonweathered to become smoother in weather followed by A-2186 (p < 0.05). Cosmesil M-511 showed the roughest material.
CONCLUSION: Cosmesil M-511 showed the least hard MFSEM after outdoor weathering while A-2000, the highest and least material showed hardness and surface roughness, respectively.
CLINICAL IMPLICATION: A-2000 had a high IRHD scale hardness. This makes this material more suitable for the replacement of ear and nose defects. Cosmesil M-511 is soft and easily adaptable material that makes the material more appropriate for the replacement of small facial defect with undercut area to be easily inserted and removed. Whilst A-2000 is smoother and finer in test specimens after weathering, Cosmesil M-511 became rougher after weathering.
METHODS: The governing equations of fluid flow have been transformed in the form of ordinary differential equations. These equations have been solved by two methods namely, shooting method and three-stage Lobatto IIIa formula.
RESULTS: The effects of different parameters on temperature, velocity, concentration profiles, skin friction coefficient, Sherwood number, and reduced Nusselt number were obtained and presented graphically. It was noticed that four solutions existed at definite ranges of the parameters for high suction over both surfaces for the first time. The results of the stability analysis revealed that only the first solution is more stable and possess physical reliability compared to the remaining solutions.
CONCLUSION: The graphs also indicated that the fluid velocity decreases as the thermophoresis parameter increases but the opposite behavior observed for both temperature and concentration profiles in the first solution. Furthermore, it was detected that the concentration profile declined at the higher values of the Brownian motion parameter.
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.