METHODS: The designed nano- anticancer formulation was characterized thorough X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transformed infrared (FTIR), transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) methods. The nano- anticancer formulation (DTX- CaCO3NP) was evaluated for drug delivery properties thorough in vitro release study in human body simulated solution at pH 7.4 and intracellular lysosomal pH 4.8.
RESULTS: Characterization revealed the successful synthesis of DTX- CaCO3NP, which had a sustained release at pH 7.4. TEM showed uniformly distributed pleomorphic shaped pure aragonite particles. The highest entrapment efficiency (96%) and loading content (11.5%) were obtained at docetaxel to nanoparticles ratio of 1:4. The XRD patterns revealed strong crystallizations in all the nanoparticles formulation, while FTIR showed chemical interactions between the drug and nanoparticles with negligible positional shift in the peaks before and after DTX loading. BET analysis showed similar isotherms before and after DTX loading. The designed DTX- CaCO3NP had lower (p 0.05) effects at 48 h and 72 h. However, the DTX- CaCO3NP released less than 80% of bond DTX at 48 and 72 h but showed comparable effects with free DTX.
CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the developed DTX- CaCO3NP released DTX slower at pH 7.4 and had comparable cytotoxicity with free DTX at 48 and 72 h in MCF-7 cells.
METHODS: Forty direct impressions of a mandibular reference model fitted with six dental implants and multibase abutments were made using VPES and PE, and implant casts were poured (N = 20). The VPES and PE groups were split into four subgroups of five each, based on splinting type: (a) no splinting; (b) bite registration polyether; (c) bite registration addition silicone; and (d) autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The accuracy of implant-abutment replica positions was calculated on the experimental casts, in terms of interimplant distances in the x, y, and z-axes, using a coordinate measuring machine; values were compared with those measured on the reference model. Data were analyzed using non-parametrical Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests at α = .05.
RESULTS: The differences between the two impression materials, VPES and PE, regardless of splinting type, were not statistically significant (P>.05). Non-splinting and splinting groups were also not significantly different for both PE and VPES (P>.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of VPES impression material seemed comparable with PE for multi-implant abutment-level impressions. Splinting had no effect on the accuracy of implant impressions.