Evaluation of the effect of photodynamic therapy on chemotherapy induced oral mucositis

How can biophotonics help dentistry to avoid or minimize cross infection by SARS-CoV-2?

Biophotonics is defined as the combination of biology and photonics (the physical science of the light). It is a general term for all techniques that deal with the interaction between biological tissues/cells and photons (light). Biophotonics offers a great variety of techniques that can facilitate the early detection of diseases and promote innovative theragnostic approaches. As the COVID-19 infection can be transmitted due to the face-to-face communication, droplets and aerosol inhalation and the exposure to saliva, blood, and other body fluids, as well as the handling of sharp instruments, dental practices are at increased risk of infection. In this paper, a literature review was performed to explore the application of Biophotonics approaches in Dentistry focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic and how they can contribute to avoid or minimize the risks of infection in a dental setting. For this, search-related papers were retrieved from PubMED, Scielo, Google Schoolar, and American Dental Association and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention databases. The body of evidence currently available showed that Biophotonics approaches can reduce microorganism load, decontaminate surfaces, air, tissues, and minimize the generation of aerosol and virus spreading by minimally invasive, time-saving, and alternative techniques in general. However, each clinical situation must be individually evaluated regarding the benefits and drawbacks of these approaches, but always pursuing less-invasive and less aerosol-generating procedures, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of photodynamic therapy for the treatment of oral mucositis

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis is a significant reaction to antineoplastic treatment characterized with pain, nutritional compromise, impact on the quality of life, interruption in cancer therapy and risk for infection. There is no effective standard protocol for the treatment of oral mucositis. This study aims to synthesize the scientific evidence available about the effects of photodynamic therapy on treatment of oral mucositis.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scielo, Embase and Cochrane libraries were searched. Two independent and calibrated researchers (kappa = 0.92) performed all systematic steps according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). To access the risk of bias, RoB 2 and Delphi list criteria for clinical trials were used. Meta-analysis was conducted using the R software with "META" package.

RESULTS

Clinical and randomized clinical trials were included with a total of five articles. Meta-analysis, level of evidence, and risk of bias assessment were performed showing that photodynamic therapy was effective in reducing healing time in association with low-power laser therapy when compared to low-power laser therapy alone (p = 0.0005).

CONCLUSION

Photodynamic therapy presents promising results for the treatment of oral mucositis. It may be an effective therapeutic option, contributing to the healing of injured tissues especially in the time needed for repair.

Comparison of the fungicidal efficacy of photodynamic therapy with methylene blue, silver nanoparticle, and their conjugation on oral Candida isolates using cell viability assay

Background and Purpose:

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of common photodynamic therapy and photodynamic therapy by the silver nanoparticle, methylene blue, and their combination on biofilm and plankton cells of standard oral Candida isolates using cell viability assay.

Materials and Methods:

In this in vitro study, biofilm and plankton cells of Candida species(i.e. C .albicans and C. parapsilosis) and plankton cells of Candida glabrata were treated with methylene blue, silver nanoparticle, and their combination once alone and then with the irradiation of total dose of 1.92 J/cm² for 60 sec. The minimum inhibitory concentration and antifungal activity of each approach were evaluated using the XTT assay.

Results:

After photodynamic therapy, methylene blue showed antifungal effect only on Candida albicans, while the antifungal effect of silver nanoparticles was increased on all Candida species. On the other hand, photodynamic therapy with the combination of methylene blue and silver nanoparticles did not have any effect on C. albicans. However, it reduced the minimum inhibitory concentration value of C. parapsilosis, and the most antifungal effect was observed on C. glabrata.

Conclusion:

Photodynamic therapy with photosensitizers can serve as a treatment modality in Candida infections of the oral cavity. Antifungal effect of photodynamic therapy was strain- and photosensitizer-dependent.