Effect of nonionic and amphoteric surfactants on salivary pellicles reconstituted in vitro

Abstract Surfactants are important components of oral care products. Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) is the most common because of its foaming properties, taste and low cost. However, the use of ionic surfactants, especially SDS, is related to several oral mucosa conditions. Thus, there is a high inter...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hannah Boyd, Juan F. Gonzalez-Martinez, Rebecca J. L. Welbourn, Kun Ma, Peixun Li, Philipp Gutfreund, Alexey Klechikov, Thomas Arnebrant, Robert Barker, Javier Sotres
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:
R
Q
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/fd0a45a099a5496fb630d34b8763aa4e
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Descripción
Sumario:Abstract Surfactants are important components of oral care products. Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) is the most common because of its foaming properties, taste and low cost. However, the use of ionic surfactants, especially SDS, is related to several oral mucosa conditions. Thus, there is a high interest in using non-ionic and amphoteric surfactants as they are less irritant. To better understand the performance of these surfactants in oral care products, we investigated their interaction with salivary pellicles i.e., the proteinaceous films that cover surfaces exposed to saliva. Specifically, we focused on pentaethylene glycol monododecyl ether (C12E5) and cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB) as model nonionic and amphoteric surfactants respectively, and investigated their interaction with reconstituted salivary pellicles with various surface techniques: Quartz Crystal Microbalance with Dissipation, Ellipsometry, Force Spectroscopy and Neutron Reflectometry. Both C12E5 and CAPB were gentler on pellicles than SDS, removing a lower amount. However, their interaction with pellicles differed. Our work indicates that CAPB would mainly interact with the mucin components of pellicles, leading to collapse and dehydration. In contrast, exposure to C12E5 had a minimal effect on the pellicles, mainly resulting in the replacement/solubilisation of some of the components anchoring pellicles to their substrate.