| Literature DB >> 35335159 |
Muhammad H Sultan1, Shamama Javed1, Osama Ali Madkhali1, Mohammad Intakhab Alam1, Yosif Almoshari1, Mohammad Ali Bakkari1, Durgaramani Sivadasan1, Ahmad Salawi1, Ameena Jabeen1, Waquar Ahsan2.
Abstract
The present study aimed to develop a local dental nanoemulgel formulation of Nigella sativa oil (NSO) for the treatment of periodontal diseases. NSO purchased from a local market was characterized using a GC-MS technique. A nanoemulsion containing NSO was prepared and incorporated into a methylcellulose gel base to develop the nanoemulgel formulation. The developed formulation was optimized using a Box-Behnken statistical design (quadratic model) with 17 runs. The effects of independent factors, such as water, oil, and polymer concentrations, were studied on two dependent responses, pH and viscosity. The optimized formulation was further evaluated for droplet size, drug release, stability, and antimicrobial efficacy. The developed formulation had a pH of 7.37, viscosity of 2343 cp, and droplet size of 342 ± 36.6 nm. Sustained release of the drug from the gel for up to 8 h was observed, which followed Higuchi release kinetics with non-Fickian diffusion. The developed nanoemulgel formulation showed improved antimicrobial activity compared to the plain NSO. Given the increasing emergence of periodontal diseases and antimicrobial resistance, an effective formulation based on a natural antibacterial agent is warranted as a dental therapeutic agent.Entities:
Keywords: Box–Behnken statistical design; Nigella sativa oil; antimicrobial; black seed; dental nanoemulgel; optimization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35335159 PMCID: PMC8954538 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27061796
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Ingredients used in NSO nanoemulgel formulation development.
| Components | Ingredients | Concentration Range (% |
|---|---|---|
| Oil phase | 0–10% | |
| Water phase | Double-distilled water | 5–15% |
| Emulsifying agent | Polyethylene glycol | 5% |
| Gelling agent | Methylcellulose | 1–5% |
| Total weight of the formulation | 20 g | |
Optimization table showing factors with their levels (−1, 0, and +1).
| Factors | Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | +1 | |
| A: Water | 5% | 10% | 15% |
| B: Oil | 0% | 5% | 10% |
| C: Gelling agent | 1% | 3% | 5% |
List of major constituents identified in the NSO sample.
| S. No | Name of the Constituent | Area (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | 26.30% | |
| 2. | Thymoquinone | 21.18% |
| 3. | Ledol | 10.96% |
| 4. | 9,12-octadecadienoic acid (Z,Z)- | 9.09% |
| 5. | Nerol, methyl ether | 2.50% |
| 6. | Lavandulol, methyl ether | 2.50% |
| 7. | 1,4- Methanoazylene decahydro-4,8,8-trimethyl-9-methylene | 2.36% |
| 8. | Carvacrol | 2.12% |
| 9. | α-Pinene | 1.74% |
| 10. | Squalene | 1.53% |
| 11. | Hydroquinine | 1.21% |
| 12. | Androst-4-ene 3,11,17-trione | 1.14% |
Figure 1Rheological behavior of the neat polymer solutions (n = 3).
Coded and uncoded level of the factors with their effects on responses (R1 and R2).
| Run | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Response 1 | Response 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 6.95 | 1862 |
| 2 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 7 | 2343 |
| 3 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 5.1 | 1250 |
| 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 3749 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.37 | 2343 |
| 6 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 5.2 | 1875 |
| 7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7.9 | 1562 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.37 | 2343 |
| 9 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 6.8 | 3275 |
| 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6.8 | 2250 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.37 | 2343 |
| 12 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 5.5 | 1150 |
| 13 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 5.8 | 1150 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.37 | 2343 |
| 15 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 7.2 | 1562 |
| 16 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 7.2 | 1170 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.37 | 2343 |
Figure 23D surface plots between the factors AB, AC, and BC, showing the effects of oil, water, and polymer concentration on (A) pH and (B) viscosity.
Figure 3Globule size distribution after (A) homogenization only and (B) homogenization followed by sonication.
Figure 4Drug release plot for the developed NSO nanoemulgel showing sustained drug release up to 8 h (n = 3).
Figure 5Drug release kinetic plots obtained for the developed NSO nanoemulgel showing R2 values for various kinetic models.
Figure 6Effect of storage temperature on the short-term stability of NSO nanoemulgel (n = 3).
Figure 7Effect of seven cycles of heating–cooling conditions on viscosity of control and optimized formulations.
Figure 8Antibacterial activity of control, plain NSO, and NSO-nanoemulgel formulation against S. aureus as the test microorganism (n = 3).