BackgroundSnakebite in India causes the highest annual rates of death (46,000) and disability (140,000) than any other country. Antivenom is the mainstay treatment of snakebite, whose manufacturing protocols, in essence, have remained unchanged for over a century. In India, a polyvalent antivenom is produced for the treatment of envenomations from the so called ‘big four’ snakes: the spectacled cobra (Naja naja), common krait (Bungarus caeruleus), Russell’s viper (Daboia russelii), and saw-scaled viper (Echis carinatus). In addition to the ‘big four’, India is abode to many other species of venomous snakes that have the potential to inflict severe clinical or, even, lethal envenomations in their human bite victims. Unfortunately, specific antivenoms are not produced against these species and, instead, the ‘big four’ antivenom is routinely used for the treatment.MethodsWe characterized the venom compositions, biochemical and pharmacological activities and toxicity profiles (mouse model) of the major neglected yet medically important Indian snakes (E. c. sochureki, B. sindanus, B. fasciatus, and two populations of N. kaouthia) and their closest ‘big four’ congeners. By performing WHO recommended in vitro and in vivo preclinical assays, we evaluated the efficiencies of the commercially marketed Indian antivenoms in recognizing venoms and neutralizing envenomations by these neglected species.FindingsAs a consequence of dissimilar ecologies and diet, the medically important snakes investigated exhibited dramatic inter- and intraspecific differences in their venom profiles. Currently marketed antivenoms were found to exhibit poor dose efficacy and venom recognition potential against the ‘neglected many’. Premium Serums antivenom failed to neutralise bites from many of the neglected species and one of the ‘big four’ snakes (North Indian population of B. caeruleus).ConclusionsThis study unravels disturbing deficiencies in dose efficacy and neutralisation capabilities of the currently marketed Indian antivenoms, and emphasises the pressing need to develop region-specific snakebite therapy for the ‘neglected many’.

By definition and general agreement, smart materials are materials that have properties which may be altered in a controlled fashion by stimuli, such as stress, temperature, moisture, pH, and electric or magnetic fields. There are numerous types of smart materials, some of which are already common. Examples include piezoelectric materials, which produce a voltage when stress is applied or vice versa, shape memory alloys or shape memory polymers which are thermoresponsive, and pH sensitive polymers which swell or shrink as a response to change in pH. Thus, smart materials respond to stimuli by altering one or more of their properties. Smart behaviour occurs when a material can sense some stimulus from its environment and react to it in a useful, reliable, reproducible, and usually reversible manner. These properties have a beneficial application in various fields including dentistry. Shape memory alloys, zirconia, and smartseal are examples of materials exhibiting a smart behavior in dentistry. There is a strong trend in material science to develop and apply these intelligent materials. These materials would potentially allow new and groundbreaking dental therapies with a significantly enhanced clinical outcome of treatments.

No abstract