Viscosity and Wettability of Carboxymethylcellulose(CMC) solutions and Artificial Saliva

Carboxymethylcellulose(CMC) 용액과 인공 타액의 점도와 습윤성

  • Park, Moon-Soo (Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnosis & Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Kangnung National University) ;
  • Kim, Young-Jun (Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnosis & Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Kangnung National University)
  • 박문수 (강릉대학교 치과대학 구강내과.진단학 교실 및 구강과학연구소) ;
  • 김영준 (강릉대학교 치과대학 구강내과.진단학 교실 및 구강과학연구소)
  • Published : 2007.12.30

Abstract

Destruction of oral soft and hard tissues and resulting problems seriously affect the life quality of xerostomic patients. Although artificial saliva is the only regimen for xerostomic patients with totally abolished salivary glands, currently available artificial salivas give restricted satisfaction to patients. The purpose of this study was to contribute to the development of ideal artificial saliva through comparing viscosity and wettability between CMC solutions and human saliva. Commercially-available CMC is dissolved in simulated salivary buffer (SSB) and distilled deionized water (DDW). Various properties of human whole saliva, human glandular saliva, and a CMC-based saliva substitutes known as Salivart and Moi-Stir were compared with those of CMC solutions. Viscosity was measured with a cone-and-plate digital viscometer at six different shear rates, while wettability on acrylic resin and Co-Cr alloy was determined by the contact angle. The obtained results were as follows: 1. The viscosity of CMC solutions was proportional to CMC concentration, with 0.5% CMC solution displaying similar viscosity to stimulated whole saliva. Where as a decrease in contact angle was found with increasing CMC concentration. 2. The viscosity of human saliva was found to be inversely proportional to shear rate, a non-Newtonian (pseudoplastic) trait of biological fluids. The mean viscosity values at various shear rates increased as follows: stimulated parotid saliva, stimulated whole saliva, unstimulated whole saliva, stimulated submandibular-sublingual saliva. 3. Contact angles of human saliva on the tested solid phases were inversely correlated with viscosity, namely decreasing in the order stimulated parotid saliva, stimulated whole saliva, unstimulated whole saliva, stimulated submandibular-sublingual saliva. 4. Boiled CMC dissolved in SSB (CMC-SSB) had a lower viscosity than CMC-SSB (P < 0.01 at shear rate of $90s^{-1}$). 5. For human saliva, contact angles on acrylic resin were significantly lower than those on Co-Cr alloy (P < 0.01). 6. Comparing CMC solutions with human saliva, the contact angles between acrylic resin and human saliva solutions were significantly lower than those between acrylic resin and CMC solutions, including Salivart and Moi-Stir (P <0.01). The effectiveness of CMC solutions in terms of their rheological properties was objectively confirmed, indicating a vital role for CMC in the development of effective salivary substitutes.

References

  1. Fox PC. Systemic therapy of salivary gland hypofunction. J Dent Res 1987;66(Spec Iss): 689-692 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345870660S114
  2. Fox PC. Salivary enhancement therapies. Caries Res 2004;38(3):241-246 https://doi.org/10.1159/000077761
  3. Block PL, Brottman S. A method of submaxillary saliva collection without cannulization. N Y State Dent J 1962;28:116-118
  4. Bennick A, Cannon M. Quantitative study of the interaction of salivary acidic proline-rich proteins with hydroxyapatite. Caries Res 1978;12(3):159-169 https://doi.org/10.1159/000260326
  5. Glantz P, Friberg S. Time-dependent rheological behaviour of saliva. Odontol Revy 1970;21(3):279-285
  6. Mellema J, Holterman HJ, Waterman HA, Blom C, 's-Gravenmade EJ. Rheological aspects of mucin-containing solutions and saliva substitutes. Biorheology 1992;29(2/3):231-249 https://doi.org/10.3233/BIR-1992-292-304
  7. Schenkels LCPM, Gururaja TL, Levine MJ. Salivary mucins: Their role in oral mucosal barrier function and drug delivery. In: Rathbone MJ(Ed). Oral Mucosal Drug Delivery. New York, 1996, Marcel Dekker, Inc., pp.191-220
  8. Blixt-Johansen G, Ek AC, Ganowiak W et al. Improvement of oral mucosa with mucin containing artificial saliva in geriatric patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 1992;14(2): 193-201 https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4943(92)90054-8
  9. Bjrnstrm M, Axll T, Birkhed D. Comparison between saliva stimulants and saliva substitutes in patients with symptoms related to dry mouth. Swed Dent J 1990;14(4):153-161
  10. Vissink A, Waterman HA's-Gravenmade EJ, Panders AK, Vermey A. Rheological properties of saliva substitutes containing mucin, carboxymethylcellulose or polyethylenoxide. J Oral Pathol 1984;13(1): 22-28 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0714.1984.tb01397.x
  11. Hatton MN, Levine MJ, Margarone JE, Aguirre A. Lubrication and viscosity features of human saliva and commercially available saliva substitutes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987;45(6):496-499 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(87)80009-5
  12. Olsson H, Axell T. Objective and subjective efficacy of saliva substitutes containing mucin and carboxymethylcellulose. Scand J Dent Res 1991;99(4):316-319
  13. Van der Reijden WA, Veerman ECI, Nieuw Amerongen AV. Rheological properties of commercially available polysaccharides with potential use in saliva substitutes. Biorheology 1994;31(6): 631-642 https://doi.org/10.3233/BIR-1994-31604
  14. Duxbury AJ, Thakker NS, Wastell DG. A double-blind cross-over trial of a mucin-containing artificial saliva. Br Dent J 1989;166(4):115-120 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4806731
  15. Levine MJ, Aguirre A, Hatton MN, Tabak LA. Artificial saliva: Present and future. J Dent Res 1987;66(Spec Iss):693-698 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345870660S115
  16. Levine MJ. Development of artificial salivas. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1993;4(3/4):279-286 https://doi.org/10.1177/10454411930040030401
  17. Fox PC, van der Ven PF, Sonies BC, Weiffenbach JM, Baum BJ. Xerostomia: evaluation of a symptom with increasing significance. J Am Dent Assoc 1985;110(4): 519-525 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1985.0384
  18. Sipahi C, Anil N, Bayramli E. The effect of salivary pellicle on the surface free energy and wettability of differerent denture base materials. J Dent 2001;29(3):197-204 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00011-2
  19. Vissink A, De Jong HP, Busscher HJ, Arends J's-Gravenmade EJ. Wetting properties of human saliva and saliva substitutes. J Dent Res 1986;65(9):1121-1124 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345860650090301
  20. Christersson CE, Lindh L, Arnebrant T. Film-forming properties and viscosities of saliva substitutes and human whole saliva. Eur J Oral Sci 2000;108(5): 418-425 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2000.108005418.x
  21. Tabak LA, Levine MJ, Mandel ID, Ellison SA. Role of salivary mucins in the protection of the oral cavity. J Oral Pathol 1982;11(1):1-17 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0714.1982.tb00138.x
  22. Sreebny LM, Valdini A. Xerostomia part I: relationship to other oral symptoms and salivary gland performance. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1988;66(4):451-458 https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(88)90268-X
  23. Vissink A, 's-Gravenmade EJ, Panders AK et al. A clinical comparison between commercially available mucin- and CMC-containing saliva substitutes. Int J Oral Surg 1983;12(4):232-238 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(83)80048-9
  24. Klestov AC, Latt D, Schiller G et al. Treatment of xerostomia: a double-blind trial in 108 patients with Sjgren's syndrome. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1981;51(6):594-599 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-4220(81)80008-4
  25. Porter SR, Scully C, Hegarty AM. An update of the etiology and management of xerostomia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;97(1): 28-46 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2003.07.010
  26. Monsenego P, Baszkin A, Costa ML, Lejoyeux J. Complete denture retention. Part II: Wettability test studies on various acrylic resin denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62(3):308-312 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90338-7
  27. Mandel ID. The role of saliva in maintaining oral homeostasis. J Am Dent Assoc 1989;119(2):298-304 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1989.0211
  28. Schenkels LCPM, Veerman ECI, Nieuw Amerongen AV. Biochemical composition of human saliva in relation to other mucosal fluids. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1995;6(2):161-175 https://doi.org/10.1177/10454411950060020501
  29. Fox PC, Busch KA, Baum BJ. Subjective reports of xerostomia and objective measures of salivary gland performance. J Am Dent Assoc 1987;115(4):581-584 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8177(87)54012-0
  30. Balmer RT, Hirsch SR. The non-Newtonian behaviour of human saliva. AIChE symposium series on biorheology 1978;74:125-129
  31. Waterman HA, Blom C, Holterman HJ, 's-Gravenmade EJ, Mellena J. Rheological properties of human saliva. Arch Oral Biol 1988;33(8):589-596 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(88)90134-3
  32. Mandel ID. The functions of saliva. J Dent Res 1987;66(Spec Iss):436-441 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345870660020901
  33. Litt M, Khan MA, Shih CK, Wolf DP. The role of sialic acid in determining rheological and transport properties of mucus secretions. Biorheology 1977;14 (2/3):127-132 https://doi.org/10.3233/BIR-1977-142-309
  34. Veerman ECI, Valentijn-Benz M, Nieuw Amerogen AV. Viscosity of human salivary mucins: effect of pH and ionic strength and role of sialic acid. J Biol Buccale 1989;17(4):297-306