| Literature DB >> 35197041 |
Lu Yin1,2, Xuehong Xu1,2, Chienyu Chu1,2, Pingting Lin1,2, Honglan Huang1,2, Bizhu Luo1,2, Changwei Yang3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To synthesize mesoporous titanium dioxide composite hydroxyapatite (TiO2-HAP) and to evaluate its effectiveness in sealing of occluding dentine tubules.Entities:
Keywords: Dentin hypersensitivity; Hydroxyapatite; Occlusion; Titanium dioxide
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35197041 PMCID: PMC8864878 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01989-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 2.757
Sample grouping and preservation conditions
| Groups | Treatment method | Preservation conditions |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | The sample surface was not treated | After being embedded in wax, it was stored at 37 °C for 7 days |
| Gluma group | Dry the sample, dip it in Gluma desensitizer, and smear the sample surface repeatedly for 10 min | |
| HAP group | Dry the sample, dip it in HAP desensitizer, and smear the sample surface repeatedly for 10 min | |
| TiO2–HAP group | Dry the sample, dip it in TiO2–HAP desensitizer, and smear the sample surface repeatedly for 10 min |
Corresponding relationship between cell proliferation percentage and cytotoxicity grade
| RGR% | Cytotoxicity grade |
|---|---|
| ≥ 100 | Grade 0 |
| 75–99 | Grade 1 |
| 50–74 | Grade 2 |
| 25–49 | Grade 3 |
| 0–24 | Grade 4 |
| 0 | Grade 5 |
Fig. 1Infrared spectrum. a TiO2–HAP; b hydroxyapatite
Surface contact angle and surface free energy values
| Groups | Contact angle (θo) | Surface free energy (nJ/cm2) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Double distilled water | Diiodiomethane | γs | γsd | γsp | |
| Control group | 68.78 ± 12.15 | 55.14 ± 10.34 | 44.19 ± 1.36 | 30.44 ± 0.65 | 13.75 ± 0.34 |
| Gluma group | 50.78 ± 9.14* | 29.75 ± 7.16* | 48.24 ± 3.56 | 20.40 ± 0.54 | 23.84 ± 0.68 |
| HAP group | 40.86 ± 18.16* | 32.91 ± 8.43* | 59.70 ± 3.27 | 47.53 ± 0.66 | 12.17 ± 0.54 |
| TiO2–HAP group | 32.78 ± 7.14* | 38.75 ± 5.16* | 46.24 ± 3.36 | 25.60 ± 0.87 | 20.64 ± 0.73 |
*P < 0.05
Fig. 2The values of contact angle. a Control group; b Gluma group; c HAP group and d TiO2–HAP group
Fig. 3Pore size distribution curve of specimen. a HAP group; b TiO2–HAP group
Fig. 4Enamel surfaces of the four groups after remineralization. a Control group; b Gluma group; c HAP group and d TiO2–HAP group
Fig. 5Enamel profile of the four groups after remineralization. a Control group; b Gluma group; c HAP group and d TiO2–HAP group
Cytotoxicity of TiO2–HAP
| Groups | OD values | RGR (%) | Cytotoxicity grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive group | 0.006 + 0.00 | 5 | 4 |
| Control group | 0.257 + 0.014* | 100 | 0 |
| 75% TiO2–HAP group | 0.286 + 0.032* | 111 | 0 |
| 50% TiO2–HAP group | 0.298 + 0.059* | 115 | 0 |
| 25% TiO2–HAP group | 0.266 + 0.041* | 103 | 0 |
| 12.5% TiO2–HAP group | 0.259 + 0.055* | 100 | 0 |
*P < 0.05
Fig. 6The cell imaging on the 4th day after cell culture. a Control group; b positive group; c 75% TiO2–HAP group