| Literature DB >> 28772963 |
Shehriar Husain1, Khalid H Al-Samadani2, Shariq Najeeb3, Muhammad S Zafar4,5, Zohaib Khurshid6, Sana Zohaib7, Saad B Qasim8.
Abstract
Chitosan (CHS) is a very versatile natural biomaterial that has been explored for a range of bio-dental applications. CHS has numerous favourable properties such as biocompatibility, hydrophilicity, biodegradability, and a broad antibacterial spectrum (covering gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria as well as fungi). In addition, the molecular structure boasts reactive functional groups that provide numerous reaction sites and opportunities for forging electrochemical relationships at the cellular and molecular levels. The unique properties of CHS have attracted materials scientists around the globe to explore it for bio-dental applications. This review aims to highlight and discuss the hype around the development of novel chitosan biomaterials. Utilizing chitosan as a critical additive for the modification and improvement of existing dental materials has also been discussed.Entities:
Keywords: biopolymers; chitin; dental materials; dental restorations; natural biomaterials; tissue regeneration
Year: 2017 PMID: 28772963 PMCID: PMC5553419 DOI: 10.3390/ma10060602
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Schematic presentation of deacetylation of chitin derived from crustacean exoskeletons.
Figure 2The comparison of chemical structural units: (A) chitin; and (B) chitosan formed following the process of deacetylation [16].
Figure 3Various structures of modified chitosan in combination with other compounds. (A) quaternized chitosan (N,N,N trimethyl chitosan); (B) water-soluble polyethylene-glycol conjugated chitosan; (C) glycol chitosan containing short ethylene glycol groups [46]; (D) water-soluble and cross-linkable chitosan derivative obtained by grafting methacrylic acid and lactic acid onto the pendant amine groups of chitosan [47]; (E) quaternized chitosan modified using glycidyl trimethyl ammonium chloride (GTMAC) for protein delivery [48].
Figure 4Current and potential applications of chitosan materials in dentistry.
Figure 5The schematic presentation of bone regeneration using the guided bone regeneration (GBR) approach. (A) shows the barrier preventing the contact of “the dentogingival epithelium and gingival connective tissues” with the curetted root surface; (B) shows the Gore-Tex augmentation membrane in a closed (primary soft tissue coverage) supporting new connective tissue regeneration and attachment on a previously periodontaly involved root surface (adapted from Scantlebury and Abmbruster [98] with the permission from publisher). GTR: guided tissue regeneration
Studies reporting effects of chitosan-modified dentifrices.
| Study | Type of Study | Active Ingredients of Tested Dentifrice | Controls | Erosive Solution (s) | Methodology | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ganss et al. [ | In vitro | Chitosan, NaF, KNO3/NaF, HA/NaF, ZnCO3-HA, SnF2 | F-free mouthwash, F-containing mouthwash | 0.05 M citric acid | Profilometric analysis of extracted teeth; immersion only and brushing | Slurry only: SnF2 most effective ( |
| Ganss et al. [ | In vitro | NaF, NaF/SnCl2, AmF/NaF/SnCl2, AmF/NaF/SnCl2/chitosan, AmF/SnF2, | SnF2, placebo toothpaste | 0.05 wt. % citric acid | Profilometric analysis of extracted teeth; brushing | AmF/NaF/SnCl2/chitosan was most effective in preventing tissue loss ( |
| Schlueter et al. [ | Random-ised in situ trial (double blinded) | F/Sn, F/Sn/chitosan | Placebo toothpaste, SnF2 gel | 0.5% citric acid | Profilometric analysis of enamel specimens in situ; slurry (3 weeks) without/with brushing | No significant difference among Sn-containing pastes after only immersion and immersion and brushing. |
| Ozalp et al. [ | In vitro | Chitosan, propolis, AmF | No treatment | Demineralization solution | SEM-EDX analysis of sound and demineralized brushed enamel | No significant differences between the tested pastes on sound lesions. |
| Ganss et al. [ | In vitro | NaF, AmF/NaF/SnCl2/chitosan | Placebo, SnF2 gel | Citric acid (1%), citric acid (1%) + collagenase | Profilometric analysis of dentine sections; slurry only, slurry + brushing | AmF/NaF/SnCl2/chitosan significantly reduced erosion with organic tissue loss when brushed ( |
| Carvalho and Lussi [ | In vitro | NaF (with and without NaF rinse), F/Sn/chitosan (with and without Sn rinse) | Placebo toothpaste | Artificial saliva, 1% citric acid | SEM/EDX of enamel specimens brushed with tested toothpastes Surface micro-hardness, tooth structure loss | F/Sn/chitosan followed by Sn rinse showed the least reduction in surface hardness ( |
| Aykut-Yetkiner et al. [ | In vitro | AmF, NaF/Nano-HA, ZnCO3-HA, NaF/AmF/SnCl2/Chitosan, NaF/HA, NaF/KNO3 | No treatment | Citric acid, HCl/pepsin | Profilometry of bovine dentine specimens brushed with tested toothpastes | All toothpastes reduced significantly but AmF toothpaste had the most significant effect. |
Amine fluoride (AmF); hydroxyapatite (HA); potassium nitrate (KNO3); sodium fluoride (NaF); scanning electron microscope elemental analyses (SED-EDX); zinc carbonate (ZnCO3), stannous fluoride (SnF2).
Summary of the flexural strengths of different formulations of chitosan-modified glass ionomer restorations along with estimated fluoride release [156]. GICs: glass ionomer cements.
| Chitosan in GICs (wt. %) | Flexural Strength (MPa) | Fluoride Release (µg/cm2) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| After 21 h | After 1 Month | ||
| 0 | 14.27 ± 2.60 | ~100 | ~500 |
| 0.004 | 18.41 ± 3.26 | ~1500 | ~3700 |
| 0.012 | 17.00 ± 3.98 | ~400 | ~1000 |
| 0.025 | 15.07 ± 4.34 | NR | NR |
| 0.045 | 6.88 ± 1.63 | NR | NR |