Real-time formation of salivary films onto polymeric materials for dental applications: Differences between unstimulated and stimulated saliva

[Display omitted] •QCM-D shows differences between the adsorption of unstimulated and stimulated saliva.•The viscoelasticity of the salivary films is affected by the type of saliva.•UV light pre-treatment of the materials affects the properties of the salivary films.•UV-treatment and stimulation affect the composition of the pellicles. The formation of salivary films onto oral prostheses materials is of central importance for understanding their performance and interaction with oral tissue and flora. The aim of this work was to study and compare the salivary films formed from unstimulated and stimulated whole saliva on two common polymeric materials, polycarbonate and poly(methyl methacrylate). Irradiating these materials with UV light is a simple way to modify their wettability, roughness and ζ-potential. Therefore, the effect of UV exposure of polycarbonate and poly(methyl methacrylate) on saliva adsorption was also investigated. For this purpose a quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation and SDS-PAGE have been combined in order to associate the thicknesses and viscoelastic properties of the salivary films with their protein composition. SDS-PAGE results suggest that a larger diversity of proteins is involved in the formation of stimulated saliva pellicles. Furthermore, according to QCM-D, pellicles formed from stimulated saliva are thinner and stiffer than the ones formed from unstimulated saliva if the polymeric materials have not been exposed to UV light although both types of saliva form a biphasic layer. For UV-treated materials, the same is applied to polycarbonate but not to poly(methyl methacrylate) where stimulated saliva yields thicker and softer films than unstimulated saliva being the adsorption process of a multiphasic nature. These results highlight the importance of choosing the appropriate sample depending on the type of study to be performed.