| Literature DB >> 35497178 |
Jaqueline Costa Favaro1, Tiago Roberto Detomini2, Luciana Prado Maia1, Regina Célia Poli1, Ricardo Danil Guiraldo1, Murilo Baena Lopes1, Sandrine Bittencourt Berger1.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the study was to characterize and evaluate the stability, antimicrobial activity, cytotoxicity, and remineralizing effects of silver nanoparticles and fluoride anticaries agent (AgF) on staining dental enamel. Materials andEntities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35497178 PMCID: PMC9042602 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9483589
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Figure 1Flowchart of enamel remineralization analysis: scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS).
Figure 2TEM micrograph of AgF solution immediately after manufacture; (a) predominantly spherical silver nanoparticles (arrow) dispersed in the colloidal solution; (b) higher magnification allows verifying the sizes of 7–30 nm of silver nanoparticles; (c) micrograph of solution 12 months after manufacture. The silver nanoparticles (arrow) remained dispersed in the solution after approximately 12 months of preparation (image with 100 nm scale).
Median inhibition zone description (mm) of SDF, CHX, AgF, and Ag.
| Treatment | Microorganism | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| SDF | 5.94Aa | 3.62Ab | 3.68Ab |
| CHX | 5.11Ba | 2.15Bb | 2.05Bb |
| AgF | 2.67Ca | 1.40Cc | 2.05Bb |
| Ag | 2.66Ca | 1.63Cb | 1.99Bb |
Medians followed by distinct letters (lowercase letters in row; uppercase letters in columns) are significantly different by Dunn's test (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Cell viability percentage in relation to the control group. Different letters indicate a significant difference in intergroup comparisons.
Mean values (standard deviation) of the initial surface microhardness (SM), after pH-cycling microhardness (SMpH), final surface microhardness (SM), percentage of surface remineralization (%SM), and variation of microhardness (ΔSM), n = 12.
| Experimental group | SM | SMpH | SM | %SM | ΔSM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SDF | 324.6 (32.7)Aa | 150.6 (27.8)Ac | 222.6 (34.8)Ab | 43.5 (18.4)A | 71.9 (28.7)A |
| F | 324.1 (38.7)Aa | 131.8 (33.8)Ab | 137.7 (31.8)Bb | 3.1 (4.1)B | 5.8 (7.8)B |
| AgF | 336.7 (47.6)Aa | 146.8 (31.1)Ac | 217.6 (44.1)Ab | 43.6 (26.3)A | 70.7 (26.9)A |
| Ag | 334.1 (30.3)Aa | 149.2 (27.8)Ab | 155.4 (31.8)Bb | 3.8 (8.2)B | 6.2 (12.9)B |
Means followed by different lowercase letters, in line, differ statistically by Tukey's test; means followed by different uppercase letters, in column, differ statistically by Tukey's test. The %SH and DSM were compared only between the experimental groups.
Figure 4The percentage representation of mineral volume (%MV) in depths according to experimental groups.
Figure 5Representative scanning electron micrographs of the enamel surface morphology. The arrows indicate the presence of precipitates; (a) intact enamel—IE: is observed a smooth surface due to sequential polishing; (b) demineralized enamel—DE: disorganized enamel surface is observed; (c) silver diamine fluoride—SDF: presence of a layer with agglomerated precipitates (arrow) and heterogeneous on demineralized enamel surface treated with SDF; (d) fluoride—F: can be observed a disorganized enamel surface; (e) silver—Ag: scattered areas of enamel precipitates (arrow); (f) silver nanoparticles and fluoride—AgF: presence of a layer with precipitates (arrow) agglomerated and heterogeneous on the surface of decayed enamel treated with AgF.
Figure 6Photographic image of superficial enamel demineralized specimens treated with SDF and AgF, 4-week follow-up.
Figure 7Photographic image of cross-sectional enamel demineralized specimens treated with SDF and AgF, 4-week follow-up.