| Literature DB >> 34833924 |
Sanaa M F Gad El-Rab1,2, Amal A Ashour3, Sakeenabi Basha4, Amal Ahmed Alyamani1, Nayef H Felemban5, Enas Tawfik Enan6,7.
Abstract
Dental caries results from the bacterial pathogen Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and is the maximum critical reason for caries formation. Consequently, the present study aims to evaluate the antibacterial activity of a newly synthesized nanoantibiotic-Biodentine formulation. The silver nanoparticles (ROE-AgNPs) were biosynthesized from the usage of Rosmarinus officinalis L. extract (ROE) and conjugated with cefuroxime to form Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs. Using Biodentine™ (BIOD), five groups of dental materials were prepared, in which Group A included conventional BIOD, Group B included BIOD with ROE-AgNPs, Groups C and D included BIOD with Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs at concentrations of 0.5% and 1.5% cefuroxime, respectively, and Group E included BIOD with 1.5% cefuroxime. The synthesized ROE-AgNPs or Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs were characterized for conjugating efficiency, morphology, particle size, and in vitro release. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the cefuroxime, ROE-AgNPs, and Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs were additionally evaluated against cefuroxime resistant S. mutans, which furthered antibacterial efficacy of the five groups of dental materials. The UV-Visible spectrum showed the ROE-AgNPs or Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs peaks and their formation displayed through transmission electron microscopy (TEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern, and Fourier transforms infrared (FTIR) analysis. The end result of Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs showed conjugating efficiency up to 79%. Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs displayed the highest antibacterial efficacy against S. mutans as compared to cefuroxime or ROE-AgNPs alone. Moreover, the MIC of ROE-AgNPs and Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs was detected against S. mutans to be 25 and 8.5 μg/mL, respectively. Consequently, Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs displayed that a decrease in the MIC reached to more than three-fold less than MIC of ROE-AgNPs on the tested strain. Moreover, Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs/BIOD was employed as a novel dental material that showed maximum antimicrobial activity. Groups C and D of novel materials showed inhibitory zones of 19 and 26 mm, respectively, against S. mutans and showed high antimicrobial rates of 85.78% and 91.17%, respectively. These data reinforce the utility of conjugating cefuroxime with ROE-AgNPs to retrieve its efficiency against resistant S. mutant. Moreover, the nanoantibiotic delivered an advantageous antibacterial effect to BIOD, and this may open the door for future conjugation therapy of dental materials against bacteria that cause dental caries.Entities:
Keywords: Biodentine™; Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs; Rosmarinus officinalis extract; antimicrobial activity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34833924 PMCID: PMC8622780 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26226832
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Cefuroxime structure.
Detail of the Biodentine™ material.
| Powder | Liquid |
|---|---|
| Tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, calcium carbonate and oxide, iron oxide, and zirconium oxide | Calcium chloride and hydro soluble polymer |
| (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fosses Cedex, France) | |
Proportion of the experimental materials added to Conventional BIOD cement.
| Group Name | Abbreviation | Components |
|---|---|---|
| Group A (control) | BIOD | conventional BIOD without any addition. |
| Group B | ROE-AgNPs/BIOD | (99.5% BIOD with 0.5% ROE-AgNPs, |
| Group C | 0.5% Cefuroxime-0.5% ROE-AgNPs/BIOD | (99% BIOD with 1% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs (1:1), |
| Group D | 1.5% Cefuroxime-0.5% ROE-AgNPs/BIOD | (98% BIOD with 2% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs (1:3), |
| Group E | Cefuroxime/BIOD | (98.5% BIOD with 1.5% Cefuroxime, |
Figure 2(I) Biosynthesis of AgNPs. Notes: UV-Vis spectra of ROE-AgNPs (A) conjugated with cefuroxime (B) to form Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs (C). (II) TEM images of the ROE-AgNPs synthesized using R. officinalis extract (A) and Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs (B). (III) XRD patterns of the synthesized ROE-AgNPs (A) and Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs (B); “*” reveal to residual materials and the numbers in brackets represent the planes of Ag face-centered cubic crystal structures. (IV) FTIR spectra of R. officinalis extract (A), the synthesized ROE-AgNPs (B), Cefuroxime (C), and Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs (D).
Figure 3(I) External standard linear curve of cefuroxime with limit of detection (LOD = 0.198298). (II) In vitro drug release profile Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs/BIOD. Group (C) C—99% BIOD with 1% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs nanontibiotic, (1:1) and Group (D) D—98% BIOD with 2% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs nanontibiotic (1:3).
Minimum inhibitory concentration of the solutions against S. mutant.
| Product | MIC | ANOVA | ANOVA | Tukey Post Hoc | MBC (µg/mL) | ANOVA | ANOVA | Tukey Post Hoc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cefuroxime a | 0.27 ± 5.3 mg/mL | 21.32 | 0.0001 | c < a, b | 0.57 ± 7.3 mg/mL | 15.42 | 0.03 | c < b, a |
| AgNPs b | 25 ± 2.0 µg/mL | 35 ± 1.1 µg/mL | ||||||
| Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs c | 8.5 ± 1.3 µg/mL | 16 ± 0.8 µg/mL |
a—Cefuroxime, b—ROE-AgNPs, c—Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs.
Antimicrobial efficiency of biomaterial against S. mutans.
| Samples (Groups) | Inhibition Zone (mm) | ANOVA | ANOVA | Tukey Post Hoc | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Day | 2 Weeks | 3 Weeks | ||||
| a. Group A | 8 | 7 | 7 | NA | NA | NA |
| b. Group B | 15 ± 2.51 | 12 ± 1.52 | 10 ± 0.57 | 8.71 | 0.03 | 1 day > 2 and 3rd week |
| c. Group C | 19 ± 1.15 | 15 ± 0.57 | 13 ± 1.00 | 9.36 | 0.02 | 1 day > 2 and 3rd week |
| d. Group D | 26 ± 1.52 | 22 ± 1.52 | 17 ± 1.15 | 15.24 | 0.001 | 1 day > 2 and 3rd week |
| e. Group E | 8 | 7 | 7 | NA | NA | NA |
| ANOVA F Value | 19.72 | 13.27 | 17.19 | |||
| ANOVA | 0.0001 | 0.001 | 0.001 | |||
| Tukey post Hoc | d < c, b | d < c, b | d < c, b | |||
Group A BIOD; (B) Group B—0.5% ROE-AgNPs with 99.5% BIOD; Group (C) C—99% BIOD with 1% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs nanontibiotic (1:1); Group (D) D—98% BIOD with 2% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs nanontibiotic (1:3); Group (E) E—98.5% BIOD with 1.5% cefuroxime.
Figure 4CFU of S. mutans cultivated with different samples: (A) Group A BIOD; (B) Group B—0.5% ROE-AgNPs with 99.5% BIOD; Group (C) C—99% BIOD with 1% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs nanontibiotic (1:1); Group (D) D—98% BIOD with 2% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs nanontibiotic (1:3); Group (E) E—98.5% BIOD with 1.5% cefuroxime.
Figure 5Antibacterial rate (R) of specimens against S. mutans. R (%), antibacterial rate. (A) Group A BIOD; (B) Group B—0.5% ROE-AgNPs with 99.5% BIOD; Group (C) C—99% BIOD with 1% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs nanontibiotic (1:1); Group (D) D—98% BIOD with 2% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs nanontibiotic (1:3); Group (E) E—98.5% BIOD with 1.5% cefuroxime.
Antibacterial rate (AR) of specimens against S. mutans.
| Samples | |
|---|---|
| A | 1.7 ± 0.10 |
| B | 45.07 ± 1.22 |
| C | 85.78 ± 0.92 |
| D | 91.17 ± 1.12 |
| E | 1.8 ± 0.110 |
| F Value ANOVA | 19.34 |
| 0.001 | |
| Tukey post Hoc | D < B, C |
AR (%), antibacterial rate. Group A BIOD; (B) Group B—0.5% ROE-AgNPs with 99.5% BIOD; Group (C) C—99% BIOD with 1% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs nanontibiotic (1:1); Group (D) D—98% BIOD with 2% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs nanontibiotic (1:3); Group (E) E—98.5% BIOD with 1.5% cefuroxime.
Figure 6SEM micrographs of the bacteria S. mutans after 24 h of incubation time. The micrographs were made on (I) Group A—BIOD; (II) Group E—98.5% BIOD with 1.5% cefuroxime; (III) Group B—99.5% BIOD with 0.5% ROE-AgNPs; (IV) D—98% BIOD with 2% Cefuroxime-ROE-AgNPs nanontibiotic (1:3).