Effect of food preservatives on in situ biofilm formation.

Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Dental School and Hospital, University Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany.
Clinical Oral Investigations (Impact Factor: 2.2). 03/2008; 12(3):203-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-008-0188-6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this double-blind, controlled crossover study was to evaluate the influence of food preservatives on in situ dental biofilm growth. Twenty-four volunteers wore appliances with six specimens each of bovine enamel to build up intra-oral biofilms. During three test cycles, the subjects had to put one half of the appliance twice a day in one of the assigned active solutions (0.1% benzoate, BA; 0.1% sorbate, SA or 0.2% chlorhexidine, CHX) and the other into NaCl. After 5 days, the developed biofilms were stained with two fluorescent dyes to visualise vital (green) and dead bacteria (red). Biofilms were scanned by confocal laser scanning microscopy and biofilm thickness (BT) and bacterial vitality (BV%) were calculated. After a washout period of 7 days, a new test cycle was started. The use of SA, BA and CHX resulted in a significantly reduced BT and BV compared to NaCl (p<0.001). Differences between SA and BA were not significant (p>0.05) for both parameters, while CHX showed significantly lower values. Both preservatives showed antibacterial and plaque-inhibiting properties, but not to the extent of CHX. The biofilm model enabled the examination of undisturbed oral biofilm formation influenced by antibacterial components under clinical conditions.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is confusion over the definition of the term "viability state(s)" of microorganisms. "Viability staining" or "vital staining techniques" are used to distinguish live from dead bacteria. These stainings, first established on planctonic bacteria, may have serious shortcomings when applied to multispecies biofilms. Results of staining techniques should be compared with appropriate microbiological data. Many terms describe "vitality states" of microorganisms, however, several of them are misleading. Authors define "viable" as "capable to grow". Accordingly, staining methods are substitutes, since no staining can prove viability.The reliability of a commercial "viability" staining assay (Molecular Probes) is discussed based on the corresponding product information sheet: (I) Staining principle; (II) Concentrations of bacteria; (III) Calculation of live/dead proportions in vitro. Results of the "viability" kit are dependent on the stains' concentration and on their relation to the number of bacteria in the test. Generally this staining system is not suitable for multispecies biofilms, thus incorrect statements have been published by users of this technique.To compare the results of the staining with bacterial parameters appropriate techniques should be selected. The assessment of Colony Forming Units is insufficient, rather the calculation of Plating Efficiency is necessary. Vital fluorescence staining with Fluorescein Diacetate and Ethidium Bromide seems to be the best proven and suitable method in biofilm research.Regarding the mutagenicity of staining components users should be aware that not only Ethidium Bromide might be harmful, but also a variety of other substances of which the toxicity and mutagenicity is not reported. The nomenclature regarding "viability" and "vitality" should be used carefully.The manual of the commercial "viability" kit itself points out that the kit is not suitable for natural multispecies biofilm research, as supported by an array of literatureResults obtained with various stains are influenced by the relationship between bacterial counts and the amount of stain used in the test. Corresponding vitality data are prone to artificial shifting.As microbiological parameter the Plating Efficiency should be used for comparison.Ethidium Bromide is mutagenic. Researchers should be aware that alternative staining compounds may also be or even are mutagenic.
    BMC Oral Health 01/2014; 14(1):2. · 1.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aims to evaluate the in situ antibacterial activity of a mouthwash containing essential oils (M-EO) on undisturbed de novo plaque-like biofilm (PL-biofilm) up to 7 h after its application. An appliance was designed to hold six glass disks on the buccal sides of the lower teeth, allowing PL-biofilm growth. Fifteen healthy volunteers wore the appliance for 48 h and then performed a M-EO. Disks were removed after 30 s and at 1, 3, 5, and 7 h later. After a washout period, the same procedure was repeated with a M-WATER and a M-0.2 % chlorhexidine. After PL-biofilm vital staining, samples were analyzed using a confocal laser scanning microscope. At 30 s after M-EO, the levels of bacterial vitality were 1.18 %, significantly lower than that of the basal sample (p < 0.001). After 7 h, the antibacterial effect of essential oils was still patent with a 47.86 % difference in bacterial vitality compared to the basal sample (p < 0.001). A single M-EO presents high antibacterial immediate activity and penetration capacity in situ and a substantivity which lasts for at least 7 h after its application over de novo biofilm. These results were better than those observed with 0.2 % chlorhexidine under the same conditions. A single M-EO is an effective measure against the de novo biofilm, presenting a good alternative to clorhexidine such as a preoperative rinse, in periodontal procedures or post-treatment applications.
    Clinical Oral Investigations 04/2014; · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aims of this double-blind, controlled, crossover study were to assess the influence of food preservatives on in situ dental biofilm growth and vitality, and to evaluate their influence on the ability of dental biofilm to demineralize underlying enamel over a period of 14 days. Twenty volunteers wore appliances with six specimens each of bovine enamel to build up intra-oral biofilms. During four test cycles of 14 days, the subjects had to place the appliance in one of the assigned controls or active solutions twice a day for a minute: negative control 0.9 % saline, 0.1 % benzoate (BA), 0.1 % sorbate (SA) and 0.2 % chlorhexidine (CHX positive control). After 14 days, the biofilms on two of the slabs were stained to visualize vital and dead bacteria to assess biofilm thickness (BT) and bacterial vitality (BV). Further, slabs were taken to determine mineral loss (ML), by quantitative light-induced laser fluorescence (QLF) and transversal microradiography (TMR), moreover the lesion depths (LD). Nineteen subjects completed all test cycles. Use of SA, BA and CHX resulted in a significantly reduced BV compared to NaCl (p < 0.001). Only CHX exerted a statistically significant retardation in BT as compared to saline. Differences between SA and BA were not significant (p > 0.05) for both parameters. TMR analysis revealed the highest LD values in the NaCl group (43.6 ± 44.2 μm) and the lowest with CHX (11.7 ± 39.4 μm), while SA (22.9 ± 45.2 μm) and BA (21.4 ± 38.5 μm) lay in between. Similarly for ML, the highest mean values of 128.1 ± 207.3 vol% μm were assessed for NaCl, the lowest for CHX (-16.8 ± 284.2 vol% μm), while SA and BA led to values of 83.2 ± 150.9 and 98.4 ± 191.2 vol% μm, respectively. With QLF for both controls, NaCl (-33.8 ± 101.3 mm(2) %) and CHX (-16.9 ± 69.9 mm(2) %), negative values were recorded reflecting a diminution of fluorescence, while positive values were found with SA (33.9 ± 158.2 mm(2) %) and BA (24.8 ± 118.0 mm(2) %) depicting a fluorescence gain. These differences were non-significant (p > 0.05). The biofilm model permited the assessment of undisturbed oral biofilm formation influenced by antibacterial components under clinical conditions for a period of 14 days. An effect of BA and SA on the demineralization of enamel could be demonstrated by TMR and QLF, but these new findings have to be seen as a trend. As part of our daily diet, these preservatives exert an impact on the metabolism of the dental biofilm, and therefore may even influence demineralization processes of the underlying dental enamel in situ.
    Clinical Oral Investigations 08/2013; · 2.20 Impact Factor


Available from
May 14, 2014