RT Journal Article
T1 Ex vivo vs. in vivo antibacterial activity of two antiseptics on oral biofilm
A1 Prada López, Isabel
A1 Quintas González, Víctor
A1 Casares de Cal, María de los Ángeles
A1 Suárez Quintanilla, Juan
A1 Suárez Quintanilla, David
A1 Tomás Carmona, Inmaculada
K1 Antiseptic
K1 Chlorhexidine
K1 Essential oils
K1 Immersion
K1 Mouthwash
K1 PL-biofilm
AB Aim: To compare the immediate antibacterial effect of two application methods (passive immersion and active mouthwash) of two antiseptic solutions on the in situ oral biofilm.Material and Methods: A randomized observer-masked crossover study was conducted. Fifteen healthy volunteers wore a specific intraoral device for 48 h to form a biofilm in three glass disks. One of these disks was used as a baseline; another one was immersed in a solution of 0.2% Chlorhexidine (0.2% CHX), remaining the third in the device, placed in the oral cavity, during the 0.2% CHX mouthwash application. After a 2-weeks washout period, the protocol was repeated using a solution of Essential Oils (EO). Samples were analyzed for bacterial viability with the confocal laser scanning microscope after previous staining with LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™.Results: The EO showed a better antibacterial effect compared to the 0.2% CHX after the mouthwash application (% of bacterial viability = 1.16 ± 1.00% vs. 5.08 ± 5.79%, respectively), and was more effective in all layers (p < 0.05). In the immersion, both antiseptics were significantly less effective (% of bacterial viability = 26.93 ± 13.11%, EO vs. 15.17 ± 6.14%, 0.2% CHX); in the case of EO immersion, there were no significant changes in the bacterial viability of the deepest layer in comparison with the baseline.Conclusions: The method of application conditioned the antibacterial activity of the 0.2% CHX and EO solutions on the in situ oral biofilm. The in vivo active mouthwash was more effective than the ex vivo passive immersion in both antiseptic solutions. There was more penetration of the antiseptic inside the biofilm with an active mouthwash, especially with the EO. Trial registered in clinicaltrials.gov with the number NCT02267239. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02267239.
PB Frontiers Media
YR 2015
FD 2015
LK http://hdl.handle.net/10347/23031
UL http://hdl.handle.net/10347/23031
LA eng
NO Prada-López I, Quintas V, Casares-De-Cal MA, Suárez-Quintanilla JA, Suárez-Quintanilla D and Tomás I (2015) Ex vivo vs. in vivo antibacterial activity of two antiseptics on oral biofilm. Front. Microbiol. 6:655. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00655
NO This work was supported by project PI11/01383 from Carlos III Institute of Health (General Division of Evaluation and Research Promotion, Madrid, Spain), which is integrated in NationalPlan of Research, Development and Innovation (PN I+D+I 2008-2011). This project was cofinanced by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF 2007-2013)
DS Minerva
RD 2 may 2026