Neven S Aref1. 1. Dental Biomaterials Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt; Basic Oral and Medical Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Buraydah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Phone: +20 1003978955, e-mail: flflaref@gmail.com.
Abstract
AIM: This study was conducted to evaluate the grape seed extract (GSE)-modified soft liner regarding surface roughness, tensile bond strength to the denture base material, and the antifungal activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The GSE powder was blended with the soft liner powder in ratios of 5 and 10% w/w, and three groups were employed: I, control; II, 5% w/w GSE-modified soft liner; III, 10% w/w GSE-modified soft liner. Evaluation parameters included surface roughness, tensile bond strength to the denture base material, and the antifungal activity. Changes in surface topography were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. The statistical analysis was performed using the one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey's test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The 5% w/w GSE-modified soft liner showed a significant increase in surface roughness, while both ratios (5 and 10% w/w) of the modified-soft liner exhibited significant increase in tensile bond strength and antifungal activity (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The GSE of 10% w/w considerably enhanced the antifungal activity and tensile bond strength of the modified soft liner to the denture base material without compromising its surface roughness. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The 10% w/w GSE-modified soft liner may be a promising formulation with antifungal activity. It could inhibit fungal adherence and development of fungi-induced lesions or exacerbation of existing ones.
AIM: This study was conducted to evaluate the grape seed extract (GSE)-modified soft liner regarding surface roughness, tensile bond strength to the denture base material, and the antifungal activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The GSE powder was blended with the soft liner powder in ratios of 5 and 10% w/w, and three groups were employed: I, control; II, 5% w/w GSE-modified soft liner; III, 10% w/w GSE-modified soft liner. Evaluation parameters included surface roughness, tensile bond strength to the denture base material, and the antifungal activity. Changes in surface topography were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. The statistical analysis was performed using the one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey's test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The 5% w/w GSE-modified soft liner showed a significant increase in surface roughness, while both ratios (5 and 10% w/w) of the modified-soft liner exhibited significant increase in tensile bond strength and antifungal activity (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The GSE of 10% w/w considerably enhanced the antifungal activity and tensile bond strength of the modified soft liner to the denture base material without compromising its surface roughness. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The 10% w/w GSE-modified soft liner may be a promising formulation with antifungal activity. It could inhibit fungal adherence and development of fungi-induced lesions or exacerbation of existing ones.