IADR Abstract Archives
In vitro effect of oral mouthwashes on Streptococcus Salivarius proliferation.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the antibacterial effect of eight different mouthwashes on Streptococcus Salivarius (SS) bacteria (ATCC 13419) using the agar well diffusion method.
Methods: Eight commercial mouthwashes (MWs) (Periogard®, Perio-Aid®, Halita®, Cariax Gingival®, Vitis Orthodontic®, Vitis Encia®, Colgate Plax Soft Mint® and Microdacyn®) were compared. Antibacterial effect was measured using the Agar well diffusion method5. The bacteria were extracted from Cultiloops®, rehydrated in brain-heart broth and activated in blood agar plates. Then, bacteria were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C in anaerobiosis using Gaspak ez anaerobe container system®. The colonies were then suspended in trypticase soy agar and diluted to 1.5X108 CFU/mL (Mc Farland standard turbidity 0.5). Eighteen Mueller-Hinton plates were streaked and 4 equidistant perforations (wells) were made. Then, 130 µm of each MWs were deposited in wells. The plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C in anaerobiosis. The R© software was used to perform statistical analysis.
Results: The inhibition zones were measured using an electronic digital caliper.The highest inhibitory effect was observed using Periogard®. Statistically significant differences (p = 0.0001 One-way ANOVA, Post-hoc Tukey; Table 1) were found when comparing the inhibition zones of different MWs. However, no significant differences were detected when comparing Periogard® and Perio-Aid®, Halita® and Cariax Gingival®, Microdacyn® and Physiological Saline solution. Only one MW exhibited no antibacterial effect (Mycrodacyn®).
Conclusions: SS is a commensal bacteria that has been associated with the production of bacteriocins. It may play a significant role in oral biofilm stabilization. Thus, selection of MWs as a therapeutic tool should be performed carefully and prescribed for limited time periods, to avoid negative effects in the oral homeostasis, but with the aim of controlling potentially pathogen microorganisms.
Methods: Eight commercial mouthwashes (MWs) (Periogard®, Perio-Aid®, Halita®, Cariax Gingival®, Vitis Orthodontic®, Vitis Encia®, Colgate Plax Soft Mint® and Microdacyn®) were compared. Antibacterial effect was measured using the Agar well diffusion method5. The bacteria were extracted from Cultiloops®, rehydrated in brain-heart broth and activated in blood agar plates. Then, bacteria were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C in anaerobiosis using Gaspak ez anaerobe container system®. The colonies were then suspended in trypticase soy agar and diluted to 1.5X108 CFU/mL (Mc Farland standard turbidity 0.5). Eighteen Mueller-Hinton plates were streaked and 4 equidistant perforations (wells) were made. Then, 130 µm of each MWs were deposited in wells. The plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C in anaerobiosis. The R© software was used to perform statistical analysis.
Results: The inhibition zones were measured using an electronic digital caliper.The highest inhibitory effect was observed using Periogard®. Statistically significant differences (p = 0.0001 One-way ANOVA, Post-hoc Tukey; Table 1) were found when comparing the inhibition zones of different MWs. However, no significant differences were detected when comparing Periogard® and Perio-Aid®, Halita® and Cariax Gingival®, Microdacyn® and Physiological Saline solution. Only one MW exhibited no antibacterial effect (Mycrodacyn®).
Conclusions: SS is a commensal bacteria that has been associated with the production of bacteriocins. It may play a significant role in oral biofilm stabilization. Thus, selection of MWs as a therapeutic tool should be performed carefully and prescribed for limited time periods, to avoid negative effects in the oral homeostasis, but with the aim of controlling potentially pathogen microorganisms.