91³Ô¹Ï

Dental materials; Polymers; Corrosion resistance; Antimicrobial; Coatings

Introduction

Dental biomaterials are extensively studied for several decades. Current advances in biomaterial science have crystal rectifier to the invention of recent materials for dental use and have broadened their use in preventive, restorative, and regenerative treatment. A good kind of these materials starting from dental cements, resins, metals, and alloys to ceramic materials area unit employed in odontology. Metals and alloys unremarkably employed in odontology embody metallic element (Ti) and their alloys like nickel-titanium (NiTi), chrome steel, cobalt-chrome alloys, nickel-chrome, gold-based alloys, or amalgam. Despite the wide accessibility of biomaterials, no material has ideal physical, mechanical, biological, and surface characteristics. Therefore, choosing a biocompatible material for dental use depends on various factors like their corrosion behavior, mechanical properties, cost, accessibility, and esthetics [1]. The hyperbolic longevity of the population has raised the stress for improved dental material perform and esthetics. Chemical compound materials (PMs) area unit wide employed in medical specialty fields, and their use has hyperbolic thanks to their improved properties and wide relevance. Polymers play a significant role in several aspects of odontology, like preventive, restorative, and regenerative therapies. The employment of PMs and chemical compound films (PMFs) instead of ancient materials (such as amalgam and cements) employed in odontology is turning into a lot of common thanks to their physical and mechanical properties and biological properties. Moreover, these materials will be used for dentin regeneration or as advanced drug delivery systems. The hyperbolic use of engineering and engineering science in drugs and odontology has crystal rectifier to the event of improved PMs for dental applications [2]. However, there exist no reports presenting a summary of the most recent advancements in PMFs for dental applications. This review presents a short summary of the approaches for victimization PMs for dental and medical applications. Here, we have a tendency to conjointly gift Associate in nursing update on PMs to be used in odontology covering their antimicrobial properties, drug delivery, and tissue regeneration and for reducing corrosion and friction. Biofilms cause common dental diseases that involve microbes adhering to teeth or restorative materials. Microbe adhesion is followed by microorganism growth and settlement, leading to the formation of a compact biofilm matrix. This matrix protects the underlying bacterium from the action of antibiotics and host defense mechanisms. The biofilm fashioned on teeth, prostheses, or implant-anchored restorations contains acidophilus organisms like strep mutants (S. mutants) and lactobacilli that secrete acid inflicting enamel and dentin demineralization Biofilm formation on implants may end up in serious infection resulting in dental implant failure. Adding totally different antibacterial drug agents like, quaternary ammonia compounds, inorganic nanoparticles (NPs), or halide varnish with natural product into the dental materials prevents biofilm formation and microorganism growth [3]. Dental varnishes containing halide with natural product together with miswak, propolis, and chitosan are shown to be an efficient approach for tooth decay hindrance. Newer techniques embody the employment of antibacterial drug compound coatings for preventing microorganism growth on artificial tooth surfaces in alternative dental materials and dental composite kits increasing the restoration’s longevity. Samples of such antibacterial drug coatings embody copolymers of propenoic acid, alkylmethacrylate and polydimethylsiloxane copolymers, cellulose coated liposomes, and carbopol [4]. Preventing microorganism biofilm formation could be a major challenge in odontology. Biofilms area unit collections of microbes that attach to laborious tissue. These microbes manufacture excessive living thing chemical compound substances (EPS) that defend them from their surroundings and antibiotics, thereby creating them antibiotic resistant. Engineering science and chemical compound nanomaterials are accustomed forestall microorganism adhesion and biofilm formation. The mix of nanoparticles (NPs) and antibiotics enhances antibiofilm activity [5]. Preventing microbic adhesion and proliferation on dental material surfaces depends on interactions between artificial chemical compound biomaterials and tooth structure [6]. compound NPs facilitate deliver medication to the target website in entrapped or immobilized forms. Additionally, NPs penetrate the biofilm structure, and unharness metal ions and antimicrobial compounds to destroy the biofilm and inhibits microbic settlement. Bioadhesive nano Systems, like liposomes, are shown to be advantageous as a result of they’ll reach sites inaccessible to alternative kinds of formulations, and might even be site-specifically targeted. Cellulose coated liposomes that fashioned naturally on tooth surfaces adsorbable the hydroxyapatite (HA) in vitro and acted as protecting biofilms. The power of pectin-coated liposomes to stay on enamel suggests their doable use as a protecting coating on the teeth. In the employment of charged liposomes[7]. Soft drinks with low pH causes tooth erosion and decay. Erosive enamel demineralization leads to surface softening and roughening. Numerous chemical compound films are tried for physically protective the teeth against erosion by preventing the direct contact of acidic surroundings within the rima oris with the teeth [8], studied the flexibility of a chemical compound changed acid resolution of humectant alginate to cut back tooth erosion. They found a layer, consisting of 2 opposing gradients of hydroxyapatite (HA) particles and chemical compound molecules, helped to cut back the erosion on dental enamel surfaces. The polymers (propylene glycol alginate, extremely esterified cellulose and gum arabic) adsorbate on the teeth forming a protecting layer on the enamel and dentin that reduced the erosive effects of acid. Chitosan could be a natural chemical compound derived from the deacetylation of polysaccharide [9]. They found that the dentifrice containing F/Sn/ chitosan showed promising leads to reducing tooth surface loss from erosion and abrasion. Chitosan, thanks to the presence of a cationic amino, incorporates a high positive alphabetic character potential and pronto adsorbs onto materials like enamel of robust negative zeta potential through static forces. The preventive potential of chitosan against erosion and enamel demineralization is attributed to its ability to make a protecting multilayer on the tooth surface within the presence of glycoprotein from spittle. This layer-by-layer build-up on the dental enamel is acid resistant, and it provides an improved protection against erosive attacks. Additionally, tin (Sn) incorporates a protecting impact thanks to the formation of amorphous deposits on the enamel surface, and therefore the incorporation of metallic element into the worn enamel and dentin [10].

Conclusion

The mechanical properties of biomaterials square measure determined by their bulk properties, whereas, tissue-biomaterial interactions square measure ruled by their surface properties. The surface modification of biomaterials will be achieved by chemical compound coating [11]. Despite the supply of various biomaterials with appropriate bulk properties, it’s rare to seek out a perfect biomaterial that possesses glorious surface characteristics and is biocompatible for clinical applications. Supported the principles and data of materials science, the advantages and limitations of those dental materials ought to be analyzed before deciding to use them clinically. The redoubled investigation into the utilization of PMFs has provided a unique set of therapeutic ways for dental applications. though most of the PMFs aren’t often used clinically, their use has shown to boost the biomechanical properties of dental materials that will translate into new treatment alternatives for patients within the future [12]. Studies are conducted on the effectiveness of toothpastes and topical creams containing casein phosphopeptide-amorphous phosphate (CPP-ACP) with halide in preventing erosive tooth wear from acidic beverages or solutions. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to research the impact of sour phosphate F (APF) gel and CPP-ACP on the dental erosion in primary teeth. They found that artificial spittle, CPP-ACP, and 1.23% APF treatments reduced erosive enamel loss created by effervescent drinks in primary teeth. The 1.23% APF gel showed the very best protecting impact against erosive enamel loss [13]. Drug delivery via the oral mucous membrane will occur through keratinized mucous membrane (gingival and onerous palate), and nonkeratinized mucous membrane (sublingual and buccal). The bio adhesive formulations shield fragile medication and improve the retention time of active substances starting from days to months rising the effectiveness of the treatments leading to patient comfort and compliance. There are advances in drug formulations and drug delivery ways victimization numerous polymers and NPs to forestall biofilm formation [14-15].

1. Fornell AC, Sköld-Larsson K, Hallgren A, Bergstand F, Twetman S (2002) . Acta Odontol Scand 60: 37-41.

, ,

2. da Silva Ávila DM, Zanatta RF, Scaramucci T, Aokic IV, Torres CRG, et al. (2017) . J Dent 56: 45-52.

, ,

3. Roach M (2007) . Dent Clin North Am 51: 603-627.

, ,

4. Navarro M, Michiardi A, Castaño O, Planell JA (2008) . J R Soc Interface 5: 1137-1158.

, ,

5. Saini M, Singh Y, Arora P, KLumar MN (2015) . World J Clin Cases 3: 52-57.

                    

6. Maitz MF (2015) . Biosurf Biotribol 1: 161-176.

, ,

7. Deb S (1998) . Proc Inst Mech Eng H 21: 453-464.

, ,

8. Ong JL, Lucas LC (1998) . Biomaterials 19: 455-464.

, ,

9. Kuill T, Bhadra S, Yao D, Kim NH, Bose S, et al. (2010) . Prog Polym Sci 35: 1350-1375.

, ,

10. Øilo M, Bakken V (2015) . Materials (Basel) 8: 2887-2900.

, ,

11. Donlan RM (2002) . Emerg Infect Dis 8: 881-890.

, ,

12. Schiroky PR, Leitune VCB, Garcia IM, Ogliari FA, Samuel SMW, et al. (2017) s. Braz Dent J 28: 196-200.

, ,

13. Degrazia FW, Leitune VCB, Gracia IM, Arthur RA, Samuel SMW, et al. (2016) . J Appl Oral Sci 24: 404-410.

, ,

14. Unger JM, Gentry LR, Grossman JE (1990) . Radiology 175(1): 175-180.

, ,

15. Kondo Y, Ito T, Ma XX (2007) . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51: 264-274.

, ,