The aim of the study was to examine the applicability of bioactive and antibacterial nanoparticles to an experimental adhesive. The adhesive (60 wt% BisGMA, 15 wt% TEGDMA, 25 wt% HEMA) was mixed with combinations of 5 wt% methacryl-functionalized polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (MA-POSS) and one kind of bioactive/antibacterial nanoparticles: 1 wt% core-shell silica-silver nanoparticle (SiO2@Ag), 1 wt% bioactive glass with bismuth (BAG-Bi) or 1 wt% calcium phosphate (CAP). Pure adhesive served as control. The physicochemical (degree of conversion (DC), linear shrinkage (LS), shear and complex viscosity, water sorption (WS), sol fraction (SF)), biological (antimicrobial effect) and bioactive (mineral precipitation) properties were investigated. DC and LS remained unchanged. The combination of BAG-Bi/MA-POSS resulted in a significantly increased WS and SF compared to control. In addition, the combination of CAP/MA-POSS slightly increased the shear viscosity of the adhesive. The addition of the nanoparticles did not influence the antimicrobial effects compared to the pure adhesive. Improved mineral inducing capacity could be detected in all nanoparticle combinations. The combination of bioactive and/or antibacterial nanoparticles showed improved mineral inducing capacity, but no antibacterial properties. The material properties were not or only slightly affected.

No abstract

Background: Face masking is associated with self-perceived dry mouth and halitosis.Aim of the study was to measure the effect of different face masks on salivary parameters and halitosis. Methods:The randomized controlled crossover clinical trial with four periods included 40 oral healthy participants using different face masks (cloth mask, surgical mask, filtering facepiece 2 [FFP2] mask) or no mask (control) for 4 h in random order. Unstimulated salivary flow rate (primary outcome) and stimulated salivary flow rate, salivary pH and buffer capacity of stimulated and unstimulated saliva (secondary outcomes, blinded), and volatile sulfur compounds (secondary outcome) were measured before and after the 4-h periods. Statistical analysis was performed by repeated measures ANOVA (p < 0.05).Results: Of 40 randomized participants, 39 completed the study. Unstimulated salivary flow rate prior to face masking amounted to 0.6 ± 0.3 ml/min. Face masking had no significant effect on unstimulated salivary flow (p = 0.550). Face masking had also no significant effect on the other salivary parameters (p ≥ 0.518). The concentration of volatile sulfur compounds (VSC) prior to face masking amounted to 157.3 ± 59.7 ppb. After face masking, the concentration of VSC increased slightly, but not significantly (p = 0.055): 168.1 ± 76.3 ppb (control), 199.3 ± 132.7 ppb (cloth masks), 188.5 ± 101.1 ppb (surgical masks), and 189.7 ± 90.1 ppb (FFP2 masks). Conclusion:Four hours of face masking did not change the salivary flow rate, pH, and buffer capacity, and had no significant effect on VSC's levels. Wearing face masks does not seem to result in measurable side-effects on salivary parameters such as a reduced salivary flow rate or VSC's levels.Clinical trial registration: The protocol was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials. gov (NCT04914208) on June 4, 2021.