Article

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.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
166 Views
  • European Journal of Nutrition 04/2012; 51 Suppl 2:S15-25. · 3.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether different antiseptic mouthrinses show different penetration kinetics into Streptococcus mutans biofilms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The biofilms, grown on glass-based dishes, were exposed to one of four mouthrinses containing chlorhexidine digluconate, essential oil, cetylpyridinium chloride, or isopropylmethylphenol. Then, penetration velocities were determined by monitoring fluorescence loss of calcein AM-stained biofilms with time-lapse confocal laser scanning microscopy. Bactericidal activity was assessed with fluorescent bacterial viable cell (Live/Dead) staining and viable cell counts. Bacterial detachment after the mouthrinse exposure was determined by measuring fluorescence reduction of SYTO9-stained biofilms. RESULTS: The essential oil-containing mouthrinse showed significantly faster penetration velocity than the other mouthrinses (ANCOVA and Bonferroni test, p < 0.05). However, even 5 min of exposure left the biofilm structure almost intact. After 30 s (consumer rinsing time) of exposure, the essential oil-containing mouthrinse showed the highest log reduction of viable cells (2.7 log CFU) measured by Live/Dead staining, and the mean reduction of total viable cells was 1.41 log CFU measured by viable cell count. CONCLUSIONS: The essential oil-containing mouthrinse showed the best penetration. Within 30 s of exposure, however, no mouthrinses injured all the microorganisms and all mouthrinses left the biofilm structure nearly intact. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The mouthrinses tested showed different levels of biofilm penetration. The essential oil rinse was superior to other rinses by all three of the in vitro measurements performed.
    Clinical Oral Investigations 05/2013; · 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

Full-text

View
15 Downloads
Available from
May 14, 2014