| Literature DB >> 35335563 |
Asfia Saeed1,2, Shahreen Zahid3, Muhammad Sajid2, Shahab Ud Din4, Mohammad Khursheed Alam5, Farooq Ahmad Chaudhary4, Muhammad Kaleem1, Haytham Jamil Alswairki6, Huda Abutayyem7.
Abstract
This study aims to compare the hardness, sorption and solubility of commercially available tissue conditioner [TC] modified with chitosan [CS] and synthesized chitosan oligosaccharide [COS] in antifungal concentration. COS was synthesized by acid hydrolysis and characterized by FTIR and XRD. Experimental materials were formulated by incorporating each per gram of TC powder with effective antifungal concentration of chitosan 1.02 mg (Group 1: TC-CS) and 0.51 mg COS (Group 2: TC-COS). A commercially available TC was used as control (Group 0: CTC). Shore A hardness test was performed according to ASTM D 2240-05 (2010) standards on samples stored in dry environment, distilled water (DW) and artificial saliva (AS) at 37 °C (n = 5 per group). Percent weight changes (n = 5 per group) after storage in DW and AS was used to record sorption and solubility. One-way Anova with post hoc Tukey's test was applied. FTIR and XRD confirmed low molecular weight and amorphous nature of COS. Experimental groups had higher Shore A hardness values; however, these changes were not significant. Greatest variations in durometer values (p ≤ 0.05) were observed during the first 24 h. Experimental groups had higher (p ≤ 0.05) percentage sorption and solubility. Samples stored in DW had significantly higher (p = 0.019) sorption, whereas material had higher (p = 0.005) solubility in AS. Mean solubility values in both immersion mediums was highest for Group 2, followed by group 1 and group 0. In addition, significant (p ≤ 0.05) increase in solubility upon aging was noted for each material. Experimental tissue conditioner had higher hardness, sorption and solubility. However, these changes are not substantial to interfere with their tissue healing property. Therefore, these materials may be considered and explored further as potential antimicrobial drug delivery agent for denture stomatitis patients.Entities:
Keywords: Shore A hardness; antifungal chitosan; denture stomatitis; sorption; tissue conditioning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35335563 PMCID: PMC8951559 DOI: 10.3390/polym14061233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1FTIR spectra of (a) Low molecular weight commercial Chitosan and (b) synthesized COS.
Figure 2X-ray diffraction pattern of low molecular weight commercial chitosan and synthesized COS.
Figure 3Mean Shore A hardness of tested material upon aging in various environment; (a): artificial saliva, (b): distilled water, (c): dry environment.
Figure 4Mean percentage absorption upon aging in distilled water and artificial saliva.
Comparison of tissue conditioner stored in distilled water and artificial saliva based on percentage sorption of specimens.
| Immerse Media | Groups | Mean | S.D | F | Post–Hoc Tukey Test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled Water | Group 0: CTC (Control) | 1.541 | 0.256 | 63.373 | Group 0 vs. Group 1 | ≤0.001 |
| Group 0 vs. Group 2 | ≤0.001 | |||||
| Group 1: TC-CS | 2.157 | 0.180 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | ≤0.001 | ||
| Group 2: TC-COS | 2.615 | 0.421 | ||||
| Artificial Saliva | Group 0: CTC (Control) | 1.659 | 0.235 | 5.945 | Group 0 vs. Group 1 | 0.007 |
| Group 1: TC-CS | 2.001 | 0.189 | Group 0 vs. Group 2 | ≤0.001 | ||
| Group 2: TC-COS | 1.964 | 0.519 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 0.020 |
Figure 5Effect of storage media on the sorption of tested material.
Mean percentage solubility of specimens upon aging in different storage medium.
| Groups | Duration | Distilled Water | F | Artificial Saliva | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± S.D | Mean ± S.D | ||||
| Group 0: CTC | 1 day | 0.116 ± 0.013 | 54.352 | 0.860 ± 0.197 | 13.124 |
| 3 day | 0.238 ± 0.024 | 1.092 ± 0.192 | |||
| 5 day | 0.214 ± 0.063 | 1.092 ± 0.190 | |||
| 7 day | 0.360 ± 0.035 | 1.424 ± 0.219 | |||
| 14 day | 0.500 ± 0.065 | 1.678 ± 0.191 | |||
| Group 1: TC-CS | 1 day | 0.652 ± 0.255 | 6.106 | 0.848 ± 0.282 | 6.952 |
| 3 day | 0.952 ± 0.274 | 0.960 ± 0.278 | |||
| 5 day | 0.952 ± 0.284 | 1.328 ± 0.265 | |||
| 7 day | 1.120 ± 0.235 | 1.416 ± 0.319 | |||
| 14 day | 1.404 ± 0.181 | 1.656 ± 0.264 | |||
| Group 2: TC-COS | 1 day | 0.700 ± 0.209 | 10.909 | 1.648 ± 0.533 | 0.761 |
| 3 day | 0.866 ± 0.275 | 1.790 ± 0.456 | |||
| 5 day | 0.892 ± 0.265 | 1.728 ± 0.411 | |||
| 7 day | 1.124 ± 0.361 | 1.874 ± 0.441 | |||
| 14 day | 1.824 ± 0.356 | 2.112 ± 0.428 |
Effect of storage media on the solubility of tested material.
| Groups | Immerse Media | Mean | S.D | F Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 0: CTC (Control) | Distilled Water | 0.286 | 0.028 | 160.367 | ≤0.001 |
| Artificial Saliva | 1.229 | 0.069 | |||
| Group 1: TC-CS | Distilled Water | 1.016 | 0.068 | 4.654 | 0.036 |
| Artificial Saliva | 1.242 | 0.080 | |||
| Group 2: TC-COS | Distilled Water | 1.081 | 0.097 | 32.112 | ≤0.001 |
| Artificial Saliva | 1.830 | 0.089 |
Comparison of mean percentage solubility of specimens in different storage medium.
| Immerse Media | Groups | Mean | S.D | F | Post–Hoc Tukey Test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled Water | Group 0: CTC (Control) | 0.286 | 0.141 | 39.372 | Group 0 vs. Group 1 | ≤0.001 |
| Group 0 vs. Group 2 | ≤0.001 | |||||
| Group 1: TC-CS | 1.016 | 0.338 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 0.790 | ||
| Group 2: TC-COS | 1.081 | 0.487 | ||||
| Artificial Saliva | Group 0: CTC (Control) | 1.229 | 0.345 | 18.359 | Group 0 vs. Group 1 | 0.993 |
| Group 1: TC-CS | 1.242 | 0.399 | Group 0 vs. Group 2 | ≤0.001 | ||
| Group 2: TC-COS | 1.830 | 0.447 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | ≤0.001 |