Department of Oral Surgery, Pathology and Clinical Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), School of Dentistry, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, São Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Dentistry, Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil.
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 12;15(10):e0240116. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240116. eCollection 2020.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis formed on the acrylic surface of ocular prostheses. In this study, 396 acrylic specimens were manufactured (50% for Staphylococcus epidermidis, and 50% for Staphylococcus aureus). For each bacterium, 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 24 hours, 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 48 hours, and 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 72 hours. Then, they were divided into groups according to disinfection method (n = 6): sterile distilled water for 10, 15, 30 min, and 6 hours (control); soap for 30 min (NES30); Opti-Free for 30 min (OPF30) and 6 h (OPF6); Efferdent for 15 min (EFF15); and 0.5%, 2%, and 4% chlorhexidine for 10 min (0.5% CHX10, 2% CHX10, and 4% CHX10). After the treatments, the specimens were vortexed to release the biofilm and the counting of bacterial colonies was performed (CFU/mL). Three-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer HSD test were used (α = 0.05). For Staphylococcus epidermidis, there was no significant difference between NES30, OPF30, and OPF6 with their respective control groups; nor between NES30, OPF30, and OPF6 themselves, regardless of the biofilm development period (P >0.05). For Staphylococcus aureus, there was no significant difference between NES30 and OPF30 with their control group; nor between NES30 and OPF30 themselves, regardless of the biofilm development period (P >0.05). For Staphylococcus aureus, OPF6 showed a significant reduction in the number of CFU/mL when compared with its control group, NES30, and OPF30, regardless of the biofilm development period (P <0.05). For both bacteria, 0.5% CHX10, 2% CHX10,4% CHX10, and EFF15 showed a significant reduction in the number of CFU/mL when compared with their control groups, NES30, OPF30, and OPF6, regardless of the biofilm development period (P <0.05). Therefore, EFF15 and CHX (0.5%, 2% and 4%) were effective in reducing Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus on acrylic surfaces. NES30 and OPF (30 and 6) are not recommended.
本研究旨在评估消毒剂对金黄色葡萄球菌和表皮葡萄球菌在义眼丙烯酸表面生物膜的影响。在这项研究中,制造了 396 个丙烯酸标本(表皮葡萄球菌占 50%,金黄色葡萄球菌占 50%)。对于每种细菌,将 66 个标本表面形成生物膜 24 小时,66 个标本表面形成生物膜 48 小时,66 个标本表面形成生物膜 72 小时。然后,根据消毒方法将它们分为几组(n=6):无菌蒸馏水 10、15、30 分钟和 6 小时(对照);肥皂 30 分钟(NES30);Opti-Free 30 分钟(OPF30)和 6 小时(OPF6);Efferdent 15 分钟(EFF15);和 0.5%、2%和 4%洗必泰 10 分钟(0.5%CHX10、2%CHX10 和 4%CHX10)。处理后,将标本涡旋以释放生物膜并进行细菌菌落计数(CFU/mL)。使用三因素方差分析和 Tukey-Kramer HSD 检验(α=0.05)。对于表皮葡萄球菌,NES30、OPF30 和 OPF6 与其各自的对照组之间没有显著差异;在不考虑生物膜形成期的情况下,NES30、OPF30 和 OPF6 之间也没有差异(P>0.05)。对于金黄色葡萄球菌,NES30 和 OPF30 与其对照组之间没有显著差异;在不考虑生物膜形成期的情况下,NES30 和 OPF30 之间也没有差异(P>0.05)。对于金黄色葡萄球菌,OPF6 与对照组、NES30 和 OPF30 相比,CFU/mL 的数量显著减少,无论生物膜形成期如何(P<0.05)。对于两种细菌,0.5%CHX10、2%CHX10、4%CHX10 和 EFF15 与对照组、NES30、OPF30 和 OPF6 相比,CFU/mL 的数量均显著减少,无论生物膜形成期如何(P<0.05)。因此,EFF15 和 CHX(0.5%、2%和 4%)可有效减少丙烯酸表面的表皮葡萄球菌和金黄色葡萄球菌。不建议使用 NES30 和 OPF(30 和 6)。