Clinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023 Jan 31;13:1130255. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1130255. eCollection 2023.
For centuries, diverse mouthrinses have been applied for medicinal purposes in the oral cavity. In view of the growing resistance of oral microorganisms against conventional antimicrobial agents e.g. chlorhexidine, the implementation of alternative treatments inspired by nature has lately gained increasing interest. The aim of the present study was to compare biofilm models with biofilms in order to evaluate the antimicrobial potential of different natural mouthrinses. For the study a six-species supragingival biofilm model containing , , , , and was used. Biofilms were grown anaerobically on hydroxyapatite discs and treated with natural mouthrinses Ratanhia, Trybol and Tebodont. 0.9% NaCl and 10% ethanol served as negative controls, while 0.2% CHX served as positive control. After 64h hours, biofilms were harvested and quantified by cultural analysis CFU. For the study, individual test splints were manufactured for the participants. After 2h and 72h the biofilm-covered samples were removed and treated with the mouthrinses and controls mentioned above. The biofilms were quantified by CFU and stained for vitality under the confocal laser scanning microscope. In the study, 0.2% CHX yielded the highest antimicrobial effect. Among all mouthrinses, Tebodont (4.708 ± 1.294 log10 CFU, median 5.279, p<0.0001) compared with 0.9% NaCl showed the highest antimicrobial potential. After 72h there was no significant reduction in CFU after 0.2% CHX treatment. Only Trybol showed a statistically significant reduction of aerobic growth of microorganisms (5.331 ± 0.7350 log10 CFU, median 5.579, p<0.0209). After treatment with the positive control 0.2% CHX, a significant percentage of non-vital bacteria (42.006 ± 12.173 log10 CFU, median 42.150) was detected. To sum up, a less pronounced effect of all mouthrinses was shown for the biofilms compared to the biofilms.
几个世纪以来，人们一直在口腔中使用各种漱口剂来达到药用目的。鉴于口腔微生物对传统抗菌剂（例如洗必泰）的耐药性日益增强，最近人们对受自然启发的替代疗法越来越感兴趣。本研究的目的是比较生物膜模型与生物膜，以评估不同天然漱口剂的抗菌潜力。为此，研究使用了包含、、、、和的六种种属的龈上生物膜模型。生物膜在羟磷灰石盘上厌氧生长，并使用天然漱口剂 Ratanhia、Trybol 和 Tebodont 进行处理。0.9%NaCl 和 10%乙醇作为阴性对照，0.2%洗必泰作为阳性对照。64 小时后，通过 CFU 培养分析收获生物膜并定量。对于研究，为参与者制造了单独的测试夹板。2 小时和 72 小时后，取出覆盖生物膜的样本并用上述漱口剂和对照物进行处理。通过 CFU 对生物膜进行定量，并在共聚焦激光扫描显微镜下对活力进行染色。在研究中，0.2%洗必泰产生了最高的抗菌效果。在所有漱口剂中，Tebodont（4.708±1.294 log10 CFU，中位数 5.279，p<0.0001）与 0.9%NaCl 相比显示出最高的抗菌潜力。在 72 小时后，用 0.2%洗必泰处理后 CFU 没有显著减少。只有 Trybol 显示出微生物需氧生长的统计学显著减少（5.331±0.7350 log10 CFU，中位数 5.579，p<0.0209）。用阳性对照 0.2%洗必泰处理后，检测到大量非存活细菌（42.006±12.173 log10 CFU，中位数 42.150）。总之，与生物膜相比，所有漱口剂对生物膜的作用都不那么明显。
Zotero 插件
