Maziere Marie, Rompante Paulo, Andrade José Carlos, De Oliveira Beatriz S F, Alves Mariana C, Rodrigues Celia Fortuna
UNIPRO-Oral Pathology and Rehabilitation Research Unit, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU), Avenida Central de Gandra 1317, 4585-116 Gandra PRD, Portugal.
Associate Laboratory i4HB-Institute for Health and Bioeconomy, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU), Avenida Central de Gandra 1317, 4585-116 Gandra PRD, Portugal.
Antibiotics (Basel). 2025 May 9;14(5):483. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics14050483.
: The main objective was to evaluate and compare the antifungal efficacy against spp. in commercially available mouthwashes distributed in the European market. Indeed, the solution to emerging infectious diseases may no longer lie in costly new drug development but rather in unlocking the untapped potential of existing substances. : Eighteen mouthwashes, chosen based on their composition, were tested in vitro against ten strains, including clinical isolates of oral origin and reference strains, in both planktonic and biofilm forms. The antifungal susceptibility testing was conducted using the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) disc diffusion method and the evaluation of the kinetic growth in planktonic . Biofilm reduction was determined by the evaluation of the minimal biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis was performed to evaluate potential morphological alterations of biofilms. : Most mouthwashes effectively reduced biomass production and colony-forming unit (CFU) count. Parodontax Extra showed the highest efficacy. In the disc diffusion assay, Gum Paroex 0.12% exhibited the largest average inhibition zone diameter. Some unusual trends in the data may be explained by a higher reaction of fungal cells and the release of excess biomass during co-incubation in higher concentration of mouthwashes. SEM images revealed significant morphological alterations. : Mouthwashes containing chlorhexidine digluconate, either alone or in combination with cetylpyridinium chloride and other active compounds, emerged as a common factor among the most efficacious formulations. In vivo studies will be essential to validate these findings, but mouthwashes may serve as a valuable adjuvant in the treatment of oral candidiasis.
主要目的是评估和比较欧洲市场上在售漱口水对 菌种的抗真菌效果。事实上，应对新出现的传染病的解决方案可能不再在于成本高昂的新药研发，而在于挖掘现有物质尚未开发的潜力。：根据成分选择了18种漱口水，在体外对10种 菌株进行测试，包括口腔来源的临床分离株和参考菌株，测试其浮游形式和生物膜形式。使用欧洲抗菌药物敏感性测试委员会（EUCAST）纸片扩散法进行抗真菌药敏试验，并评估浮游形式的动力学生长。通过评估最小生物膜根除浓度（MBEC）来确定生物膜减少情况。进行扫描电子显微镜（SEM）分析以评估 生物膜的潜在形态变化。：大多数漱口水有效降低了生物量产生和菌落形成单位（CFU）计数。帕罗西汀Extra表现出最高的疗效。在纸片扩散试验中，0.12%的牙龈康显示出最大的平均抑菌圈直径。数据中的一些异常趋势可能是由于真菌细胞的反应性较高以及在较高浓度漱口水共同孵育期间释放出过量生物量所致。SEM图像显示出明显的形态变化。：含有葡萄糖酸氯己定的漱口水，单独使用或与西吡氯铵和其他活性化合物联合使用时，是最有效配方中的一个共同因素。体内研究对于验证这些发现至关重要，但漱口水可能是治疗口腔念珠菌病的一种有价值的辅助手段。
