A comparative in vitro evaluation of nano-oxides for ultraviolet protection in maxillofacial silicones
Source abstract
Abstract
Maxillofacial silicone prostheses are widely used for the rehabilitation of facial defects; yet, conventional silicones offer insufficient ultraviolet (UV) protection, potentially resulting in UV-related material and tissue problems. This in vitro study was aimed to improve the UV resistance of medical-grade silicone by adding different concentrations (0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, and 2.0% by weight) of nano-oxides: silver (AgNPs), cerium oxide (CeO2), zinc oxide (ZnO), and titanium dioxide (TiO2). We have used UV-VIS-NIR spectrophotometry to test 200 samples of silicone materials for their ability to transmit UV rays and determine the Ultraviolet Protection Factor (UPF) for UVA and UVB rays. Nanoparticles were synthesized via both green and chemical approaches. In this study Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM-EDX) were used to look at the nanoparticles. The nanoparticles were then spread out using probe sonication before being mixed into the silicone material. For, statistical analysis, we used the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. For multivariate analysis, we used PERMANOVA and Holm correction. The results indicated that all silicones with added nano-oxide exhibited significantly improved UV protection relative to the control group. Titanium dioxide (TiO2), especially at 1.5%, let in the least amount of UVA and UVB radiation and had the highest UPF values. Zinc oxide and cerium oxide provided moderate UV protection that was not linear and depended on the concentration. Silver nanoparticles, on the other hand, offered relatively poor UV protection. Adding nano-oxides to medical-grade silicone generally made it better at blocking UV rays. Further, studies are required before the material can be applied in a medical setting.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques · Ocular Disorders and Treatments · Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. Beumer J, Marunick MT, Esposito SJ. Maxillofacial rehabilitation: prosthodontic and surgical management of cancer-related, acquired, and congenital defects of the head and neck. 3rd ed. Hanover Park: Quintessence Publishing; 2011.
2. Bulbulian AH. Maxillofacial prosthetics: evolution and practical application in patient rehabilitation. J Prosthet Dent. 1965;15:554–69.10.1016/S0022-3913(65)80025-7 ↗
3. Goiato MC, dos Santos DM, Bannwart LC, Moreno A, Pesqueira AA, Haddad MF, et al. Psychosocial impact on anophthalmic patients wearing ocular prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;42:113–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2012.05.028.10.1016/j.ijom.2012.05.028 ↗
4. Côas VR, Neves AC, Rode SD. Evaluation of the etiology of ocular globe atrophy or loss. Braz Dent J. 2005;16:243–6. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402005000300013.10.1590/S0103-64402005000300013 ↗
5. Gradinariu AI, Racles C, Stoica I, Stelea CG, Simionescu A-MA, Jehac AE, Costan VV. Silicones for maxillofacial prostheses and their modifications in service. Materials. 2024;17(13):3297. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17133297.10.3390/ma17133297 ↗
6. Gupta D, Verma D, Islam D, Agarwal D. Maxillofacial defects and their classification: a review. Int J Adv Res. 2016;4:109–14. https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/618.10.21474/IJAR01/618 ↗
7. Khindria S, Bansal S, Kansal M. Maxillofacial prosthetic materials. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2009;9:2–5. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.52862.10.4103/0972-4052.52862 ↗
8. Gonzalez JB, Chao EY, An KN. Physical and mechanical behaviour of polyurethane elastomer formulations used for facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1978;39:307–18.10.1016/S0022-3913(78)80102-4 ↗
9. Al-Kadi FK, AbdulKareem JF, Azhdar BA. Evaluation of the mechanical and physical properties of maxillofacial silicone type A-2186 impregnated with a hybrid chitosan–TiO2 nanocomposite subjected to different accelerated aging conditions. Biomimetics. 2023;8(7):539. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8070539.10.3390/biomimetics8070539 ↗
10. Caputo F, De Nicola M, Sienkiewicz A, et al. Cerium oxide nanoparticles combining antioxidant and UV-shielding properties prevent UV-induced cell damage and mutagenesis. Nanoscale. 2015;7(38):15643–56. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5nr03767k.10.1039/c5nr03767k ↗
11. Hatamleh MM, Polyzois GL, Nuseir A, Hatamleh K, Alnazzawi A. Mechanical properties and simulated aging of silicone maxillofacial elastomers: advancements in the past 45 years. J Prosthodont. 2016;25:418–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12409.10.1111/jopr.12409 ↗
12. Montgomery PC, Kiat-Amnuay S. Survey of currently used materials for fabrication of extraoral maxillofacial prostheses. J Prosthodont. 2010;19:482–90.10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00538.x ↗
13. Lewis DH, Castleberry DJ. An assessment of recent advances in external maxillofacial materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1980;43:426–32.10.1016/0022-3913(80)90215-2 ↗
14. Lai JH, Wang LL, Ko CC, DeLong RL, Hodges JS. New organosilicon maxillofacial prosthetic materials. Dent Mater. 2002;18(3):281–6.10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00050-1 ↗
15. Chalian VA, Phillips RW. Materials in maxillofacial prosthetics. J Biomed Mater Res. 1974;8(4 Pt 2):349–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820080415.10.1002/jbm.820080415 ↗
16. Han Y, Kiat-Amnuay S, Powers JM, Zhao Y. Effect of nano-oxide concentration on the mechanical properties of a maxillofacial silicone elastomer. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100:465–73.10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60266-8 ↗
17. Cao Z, Zhang Z, Wang F, Wang G. Synthesis and UV-shielding properties of zinc oxide ultrafine particles modified with silica and trimethyl siloxane. Colloids Surf Physicochem Eng Asp. 2009;340:161–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2009.03.024.10.1016/j.colsurfa.2009.03.024 ↗
18. Situm M, Buljan M, Bulat V, et al. The role of UV radiation in the development of basal cell carcinoma. Coll Antropol. 2008;32(Suppl 2):167–70.
19. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Guidelines on limits of exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Health Phys. 2004;87:171–86. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-200408000-00006.10.1097/00004032-200408000-00006 ↗
20. Schilling K, Bradford B, Castelli D, et al. Human safety review of nano titanium dioxide and zinc oxide. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2010;9:495–509. https://doi.org/10.1039/B9PP00180H.10.1039/B9PP00180H ↗
21. Mohan A, Babu VM. Effect of particle size of nano-oxides on colour stability and mechanical properties of maxillofacial silicone elastomers. Int J Prosthodont. 2021. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.6593.10.11607/ijp.6593 ↗
22. Zarrati S, Safi M, Mohammad Rezaei SM, Shadan L. Effect of nano-oxides on the colour stability of maxillofacial silicone elastomers. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127:362–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.07.021.10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.07.021 ↗
23. Bangera BS, Guttal SS. Evaluation of varying concentrations of nano-oxides as ultraviolet protective agents when incorporated in maxillofacial silicones. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112:1567–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.07.001.10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.07.001 ↗
24. Gudikandula K, Maringanti CS. Synthesis of silver nanoparticles by chemical and biological methods and their antimicrobial properties. J Exp Nanosci. 2016;11:714–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17458080.2016.1139196.10.1080/17458080.2016.1139196 ↗
25. Choudary MRP, Surya M, Saravanan M. Green synthesis of cerium oxide nanoparticles using Tribulus terrestris: characterization and evaluation of antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antibacterial efficacy against wound isolates. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/ad7f5.10.1088/2057-1976/ad7f5 ↗
26. Dhoke SK. Synthesis of nano-ZnO by chemical method and its characterization. Results Chem. 2023;5:100771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rechem.2023.100771.10.1016/j.rechem.2023.100771 ↗
27. Dubey RS, Krishnamurthy KV, Singh S. Experimental studies of TiO2 nanoparticles synthesized by sol–gel and solvothermal routes. Res. Phys. 2019;14:102390. . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2019.10239010.1016/j.rinp.2019.102390 ↗
28. Akash RN, Guttal SS. Effect of incorporation of nano-oxides on colour stability of maxillofacial silicone elastomer subjected to outdoor weathering. J Prosthodont. 2015;24:569–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12252.10.1111/jopr.12252 ↗
29. Rajagopalan N, Khanna AS. Effect of size and morphology on UV-blocking property of nano-ZnO in epoxy coating. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2013;3:1–4.
30. Nada HE, Ahmad MA, Moustafa NA. Evaluation of intrinsic colour stability of facial silicone elastomer reinforced with different nanoparticles. Alex Dent J. 2016;41:50–4. https://doi.org/10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59172.10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59172 ↗
31. Ali I, Suhail M, Alothman ZA, Alwarthan A. Recent advances in syntheses, properties and applications of TiO2 nanostructures. RSC Adv. 2018;8:30125–47. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ra06517a.10.1039/c8ra06517a ↗
32. Abdalqadir M, Faraj S, Azhdar B. An evaluation of a technique to improve the mechanical properties of maxillofacial silicone elastomers with zinc oxide nanoparticles. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127:531–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.043.10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.043 ↗
33. Abdalqadir M, Faraj S, Azhdar B. Dispersion of zinc oxide nanoparticles in maxillofacial silicone elastomer by ultrasonication: a morphological study. Sulaimani Dent J. 2019;60:31–7. https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10094.10.17656/sdj.10094 ↗