| Literature DB >> 31011350 |
Sahar Abdulrazzaq Naji1,2, Tahereh Sadat Jafarzadeh Kashi3,4, Maryam Pourhajibagher4,5,6, Marjan Behroozibakhsh3,7, Reza Masaeli3,7, Abbas Bahador4,6.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the antimicrobial properties of a conventional poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA) modified with hydrothermally synthesised titanium dioxide nanotubes (TNTs). Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), and minimum fungicidal concentrations (MFC) for planktonic cells of the TiO2 nanotubes solution against Lactobacillus acidophilus, Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans were determined. The powder of conventional acrylic resin was modified using 2.5% and 5% by weight synthesised titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanotubes, and rectangular-shaped specimens (10 mm × 10 mm × 3 mm) were fabricated. The antimicrobial properties of ultraviolet (UV) and non-UV irradiated modified, and non-modified acrylic resins were evaluated using the estimation of planktonic cell count and biofilm formation of the three microorganisms mentioned above. The data were analysed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by a post-hoc Tukey's test at a significance level of 5%. MIC, for Streptococcus. mutans, Lactobacillus. acidophilus, and Candida. albicans, MBC for S. mutans and L. acidophilus and MFC for Candida. albicans were obtained more than 2100 µg/mL. The results of this study indicated a significant reduction in both planktonic cell count and biofilm formation of modified UV-activated acrylic specimens compared with the control group (p = 0.00). According to the results of the current study, it can be concluded that PMMA/TiO2 nanotube composite can be considered as a promising new material for antimicrobial approaches.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial properties; Biofilm; Candida albicans; Cariogenic bacteria; Denture base resin; Titania nanotubes
Year: 2018 PMID: 31011350 PMCID: PMC6447881
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Viable planktonic phase counts of C. albicans, L. acidophilus and S. mutans in non-modified conventional denture base acrylic discs (control group) and those modified with 2.5% and 5% TiO2 before and after UV irradiation
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groups |
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Control | 10.48 ± 0.013 | 10.28 ± 0.004 | 10.27 ± 009 | 8.27 ± 0.012 | 8.24 ± 0.003 | 8.15 ± 0.010 | |
| TiO2-2.5% | 8.23 ± 0.016 | 8.14 ± 0.126 | 8.07 ± 0.013 | 6.62 ± 0.029 | 6.43 ± 0.030 | 6.16 ± 0.079 | |
| TiO2-5% | 8.05 ± 0.027 | 8.03 ± 0.008 | 8.02 ± 0.014 | 5.09 ± 0.081 | 4.90 ± 0.054 | 4.77 ± 0.082 | |
The same letters denote the groups which have statistically significant differences.
p = 0.5 for the difference between the microbial count of non-UV-irradiated TiO -2.5% and UV irradiated control samples of C. albicans.
p = 0.610 for the difference between non-UV TiO -2.5% and TiO -5% samples of S. mutans.
p = 0.145 for the difference between non-UV TiO -2.5% and UV-irradiated control samples of S. mutans.
Figure 1Viable microorganism counts (CFU mL-1) of C. albicans, L. acidophilus and S. mutans in (a) planktonic phase assay of non-UV activated samples, (b) planktonic phase assay following activation with UV irradiation, (c) biofilm of non-UV irradiated samples and (d) and biofilm following activation using UV irradiation. (Error bars: +/-2 SD)
Figure 2Representative image of the microbial count of C. albicans, L. acidophilus and S. mutans evaluated by planktonic phase assay in non-UV- and UV-irradiated specimens. As it is shown, the number of microorganisms was reduced in TiO2 nanotube (TNT)-activated samples in all utilised strains
Viable cell counts of C. albicans, L. acidophilus and S. mutans biofilms in non-UV activated resin and following activation with UV irradiation in a conventional denture base acrylic resin containing 0% (control), 2.5% and 5% titania nanotubes
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groups |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Control | 6.43 ± 0.020 | 6.36 ± 0.036 | 6.20 ± 0.020 | 6.33 ± 0.057 | 6.28 ± 0.036 | 6.17 ± 0.024 |
| TiO2-2.5% | 6.36 ± 0.016 | 6.27 ± 0.020 | 6.13 ± 0.013 | 6.14 ± 0.027 | 6.02 ± 0.017 | 5.86 ± 0.076 |
| TiO2-5% | 6.18 ± .040 | 6.07 ± 0.034 | 5.99 ± 0.038 | 4.86 ± 0.083 | 4.46 ± 0.141 | 4.39 ± 0.080 |
The same letters denote the groups which have not statistically significant differences.
albicans.
acidophilus.
p = 0.133 for the difference between biofilm formation on non-UV-irradiated TiO -2.5% and control samples of C. albicans.
p = 0.706 for the difference between biofilm formation on non-UV-irradiated TiO -5% and UV irradiated samples of TiO -5% of C.
p = 0.341 for the difference between biofilm formation on non-UV-irradiated TiO -2.5% and control samples of L. acidophilus.
p = 0.497 for the difference between biofilm formation on non-UV-irradiated and UV irradiated control samples of L. acidophilus.
p = 0.746 for the difference between biofilm formation on non-UV-irradiated TiO 5% and UV irradiated TiO -2.5% samples of L.
p = 0.248 for the difference between biofilm formation on non-UV-irradiated TiO -2.5% and control samples of S. mutans.
p = 0.956 for the difference between biofilm formation on non-UV-irradiated and UV irradiated control samples of S. mutans.