| Literature DB >> 35267731 |
Abstract
Denture stomatitis is a common oral infection caused by Candid albicans. It occurs under removable dentures due to several causative and contributing factors. If not treated, it can lead to fatal systemic candida infections. Different materials and techniques have been used to treat denture stomatitis; however, no single treatment has succeeded. The purpose of this study was to review novel techniques for incorporating antimicrobial and protein repellent agents into denture acrylic resin materials and their effect on the adhesion of Candida albicans to denture base acrylic resin materials to prevent and/or treat denture stomatitis. A systematic review was conducted in which an electronic search was undertaken using different databases and relevant keywords. The literature search revealed numerous studies describing different antifungal materials incorporated into different denture acrylic resin materials. The investigated materials showed significant antimicrobial activity with slight or no effect on the physical and mechanical properties; however, the optical properties were particularly affected with higher concentrations. The incorporation of antimicrobial agents to reduce or prevent Candida albicans biofilm formation on acrylic resin proved to be very effective, and this effect was found to be proportional to the percentage of the material used. The latter should be considered carefully not to alter the physical, mechanical or optical characteristics of the denture base material.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial agents; candida biofilm; denture acrylic; denture stomatitis; surface properties
Year: 2022 PMID: 35267731 PMCID: PMC8912396 DOI: 10.3390/polym14050908
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
| Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
|---|---|
| Papers written in English | Qualitative and/or quantitative reviews |
| Papers published from 2010–2021 | Case series |
| Papers studied novel techniques of incorporating anti-fungal and protein repellent agents, both in-vitro or in-vivo | Case reports |
| Commentaries | |
| Letters to the editor | |
| Interviews | |
| Updates |
Different antifungal and protein repellent agents incorporated into PMMA denture acrylic resin materials.
| Type of Material | Author | Date | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polymer | Polymeric Biocides | Pesci-Bardon et al. | 2006 | |
| Raj, P.A. and Dentino | 2011 | |||
| Rodriguez LS et al. | 2013 | |||
| da Silva Barboza et al. | 2021 | |||
| Biocide-releasing polymers | Silver nanoparticles | Sehajpal | 1989 | |
| 2012 | ||||
| Yadav et al. | 2012 | |||
| Asar et al. | 2013 | |||
| Gad M et al. 2017 | 2017 | |||
| Hamedi-Rad et al. | 2014 | |||
| Ghafari et al. | 2014 | |||
| Suganya et al. | 2014 | |||
| de Castro et al. | 2016 | |||
| Zhang et al. | 2017 | |||
| Hashim et al. | 2020 | |||
| Silver zeolites | Kawahara | 2000 | ||
| Casemiro et al. | 2008 | |||
| Zinc oxide | Kamonkhantikul et al. | 2017 | ||
| Anwander | 2017 | |||
| Zirconium oxide | Gad et al. | 2017 | ||
| Gad et al. | 2018 | |||
| Hamid et al. | 2021 | |||
| Abualsaud et al. | 2021 | |||
| Biocidal surface coatings (Protein Repellent Agent) | Bajunaid et al. | 2021 | ||
| Bajunaid et al. | 2022 | |||
| Nano-diamonds and Fillers | Nano-diamonds | Mangal et al. | 2019 | |
| Al-Harbi et al. | 2019 | |||
| Fouda et al. | 2019 | |||
| Fluoridated glass fillers | Kamijo et al. | 2009 | ||
| Tsutsumi et al. | 2016 | |||
| Natural Antifungal Agents | Chitosan | Song et al. | 2015 | |
| Ikono et al. | 2019 | |||
| Fakhri et al. | 2020 | |||
| Sonawane and Kamb | 2020 | |||
| Chander and Venkatraman | 2021 | |||
| Henna ( | Nawasrah et al. | 2016 | ||
| Gad et al. | 2018 | |||
| Neem powder ( | Hamid et al. | 2019 | ||
| Chincholikar et al. | 2019 | |||
| Antifungal Medicaments | Darwish and Amin | 2011 | ||
| Salim et al. | 2013 | |||
| Maluf et al. | 2019 | |||
| Maluf et al. | 2020 | |||
Figure 1Average roughness values of HIPA acrylic mixed with 0% MPC, 1.5% MPC, 3% MPC and 4.5% MPC as a protein repellent (mean ± SD; n = 12). HIPA acrylic resin with 4.5% MPC, showed surface roughness values similar to that of the control group (p > 0.05).
Figure 2Colony-forming unit (CFU) counts of the C.albicans 2-day biofilm on the HIPA acrylic disks (mean ± SD; n = 4). Experimental group with 4.5% MPC resulted in a significant ≅ 1 log CFU reduction, compared to control group with 0% MPC (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Flexural strength of the acrylic resin; similar letters indicate statistical similarity (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).