| Literature DB >> 33920823 |
Siriporn Okonogi1,2, Pimpak Phumat3, Sakornrat Khongkhunthian2,4, Kullapop Suttiat5, Pisaisit Chaijareenont2,5.
Abstract
Candida albicans is a common overgrowth in people wearing dentures. Long-term use of antifungal chemicals carries a risk of toxic side effects. This study focused on the edible Piper betle extract because of its safety. The broth dilution method was applied for antifungal determination of the ethyl acetate fractionated extract (fEA) and fEA-loaded polymeric micelles (PMF). The PMF was prepared by thin-film hydration using poloxamer 407 as a polymer base. The results found that the weight ratio of fEA to polymer is the main factor to obtain PMF system as a clear solution, nanoparticle sizes, narrow size distribution, negative zeta potential, and high entrapment efficiency. The activity of PMF against C. albicans is significantly higher than fEA alone, with a minimum fungicidal concentration of 1.5 mg/mL. PMF from 1:3 ratio of fEA to polymer is used to develop a denture-soaking solution contained 1.5 mg fEA/mL (PMFS). A clinical study on dentures of 15 volunteers demonstrated an 86.1 ± 9.2% reduction of C. albicans after soaking the dentures in PMFS daily for 14 days. Interestingly, PMFS did not change the hardness and roughness of the denture base resins. The developed PMFS may serve as a potential natural denture-soaking solution against candidiasis in denture wearers.Entities:
Keywords: PMMA; Piper betle; anti-candidiasis; denture-soaking solution; poloxamer; polymeric micelles; solubility
Year: 2021 PMID: 33920823 PMCID: PMC8071126 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10040440
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Figure 1Chemical structure of APC.
Figure 2Outer appearance of PMF formulations in various ratios of fEA to P407 polymer.
Effect of fEA:P407 ratio on light transmittance and turbidity.
| fEA:P407. Ratio and Controls. | Transmittance * (%) | Turbidity * (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1:1 | 27.99 ± 0.02 d | 72.01 ± 0.02 c |
| 1:2 | 29.82 ± 0.01 c | 70.18 ± 0.01 b |
| 1:3 | 35.34 ± 0.01 b | 64.66 ± 0.01 a |
| 1:4 | 35.51 ± 0.01 b | 64.49 ± 0.01 a |
| P407 solution | 99.46 ± 0.02 a | 0.95 ± 0.02 a |
| Deionized water | 99.45 ± 0.05 a | 0.55 ± 0.05 a |
| fEA in ethanol | 9.28 ± 0.01 e | 90.72 ± 0.01 e |
* Data are presented as mean ± SD of three replicates. Different letters indicate significant difference between treatment groups (p < 0.05).
Particle size, PdI, and zeta potential of PMF formulations.
| fEA:P407 | Particles Size * | PdI * | Zeta Potential * |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1:1 | 42.26 ± 0.09 b | 0.32 ± 0.01 c | −3.54 ± 0.56 c |
| 1:2 | 41.11 ± 0.28 a | 0.27 ± 0.02 b,c | −4.42 ± 0.11 a,b |
| 1:3 | 45.85 ± 2.27 c | 0.20 ± 0.01 a | −5.18 ± 0.08 a |
| 1:4 | 55.26 ± 1.05 d | 0.34 ± 0.02 a,b | −4.67 ± 0.72 a,b |
* Data are presented as mean ± SD of three replicates. Different letters indicate significant difference between treatment groups (p < 0.05).
MIC and MFC values (mg/mL).
| Samples | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC | MFC | MFC/MIC Ratio | MIC | MFC | MFC/MIC Ratio | |
| PMF | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| fEA | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Nystatin | 0.0006 | 0.0024 | 4.0 | 0.0031 | 0.0124 | 4.0 |
Figure 3SEM micrographs of C. albicans; (a) untreated cells; (b) treated with PMF; (c) treated with fEA; (d) treated with nystatin. The red arrows indicate the destruction of C. albicans cells.
Figure 4Characterization of PMFS; (a) physical appearance; (b) the self-assembly formation of fEA-loaded PMs; (c) histogram of particle size and size distribution after determined using photon correlation spectroscopy (PCS).
Figure 5Efficacy of PMFS against C. albicans in clinical study after 7-day and 14-day period of applications; (a) colonies of C. albicans in each day; (b) % cell reduction of C. albicans in Day 7 and Day 14. Error bars represent the mean ± SD (n = 15). * p < 0.05 and *** p < 0.001; paired t-test.
Effect of solutions on mechanical properties of acrylic resin after immersion for 21 cycles.
| Solution | Vicker’s Hardness * | Surface Roughness * (µm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | |
| PMFS | 19.65 ± 1.19 a | 18.03 ± 0.78 a | 0.14 ± 0.02 a | 0.15 ± 0.03 a |
| 0.5% NaOCl | 19.46 ± 0.80 a | 19.96 ± 0.84 a | 0.14 ± 0.02 a | 0.16 ± 0.03 a |
| Distilled water | 19.29 ± 0.73 a | 18.52 ± 0.74 a | 0.14 ± 0.02 a | 0.15 ± 0.03 a |
* Data are presented as mean ± SD of three replicates. Lowercase letters indicate significant difference between treatment groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 6The collected areas from the inner resin base of the dentures.