The Efficacy of Povidone-Iodine Products against Periodontopathic Bacteria

The Hygienic Significance of Microbiota and Probiotics for Human Wellbeing

The human body can be viewed as a combination of ecological niches inhabited by trillions of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites, all united by the microbiota concept. Human health largely depends on the nature of these relationships and how they are built and maintained. However, personal hygiene practices have historically been focused on the wholesale elimination of pathogens and "hygiene-challenging microorganisms" without considering the collateral damage to beneficial and commensal species. The microbiota can vary significantly in terms of the qualitative and quantitative composition both between different people and within one person during life, and the influence of various environmental factors, including age, nutrition, bad habits, genetic factors, physical activity, medication, and hygienic practices, facilitates these changes. Disturbance of the microbiota is a predisposing factor for the development of diseases and also greatly influences the course and severity of potential complications. Therefore, studying the composition of the microbiota of the different body systems and its appropriate correction is an urgent problem in the modern world. The application of personal hygiene products or probiotics must not compromise health through disruption of the healthy microbiota. Where changes in the composition or metabolic functions of the microbiome may occur, they must be carefully evaluated to ensure that essential biological functions are unaffected. As such, the purpose of this review is to consider the microbiota of each of the "ecological niches" of the human body and highlight the importance of the microbiota in maintaining a healthy body as well as the possibility of its modulation through the use of probiotics for the prevention and treatment of certain human diseases.

Mouthwash Effects on the Oral Microbiome: Are They Good, Bad, or Balanced?

This narrative review describes the oral microbiome, and its role in oral health and disease, before considering the impact of commonly used over-the-counter (OTC) mouthwashes on oral bacteria, viruses, bacteriophages, and fungi that make up these microbial communities in different niches of the mouth. Whilst certain mouthwashes have proven antimicrobial actions and clinical effectiveness supported by robust evidence, this review reports more recent metagenomics evidence, suggesting that mouthwashes such as chlorhexidine may cause "dysbiosis," whereby certain species of bacteria are killed, leaving others, sometimes unwanted, to predominate. There is little known about the effects of mouthwashes on fungi and viruses in the context of the oral microbiome (virome) in vivo, despite evidence that they "kill" certain viral pathogens ex vivo. Evidence for mouthwashes, much like antibiotics, is also emerging with regards to antimicrobial resistance, and this should further be considered in the context of their widespread use by clinicians and patients. Therefore, considering the potential of currently available OTC mouthwashes to alter the oral microbiome, this article finally proposes that the ideal mouthwash, whilst combatting oral disease, should "balance" antimicrobial communities, especially those associated with health. Which antimicrobial mouthwash best fits this ideal remains uncertain.

Disinfection Procedures and Their Effect on the Microorganism Colonization of Dental Impression Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies

Dental impressions are contaminated with potentially pathogenic microorganisms when they come into contact with patient blood, saliva, and plaque. Numerous disinfectants are used; however, no sole disinfectant can be designated as universal for all the impression materials. Thus, the aim of this study is to systemically review the literature to evaluate the effect of the existing disinfection procedures on the bacterial colonization of dental impression materials. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and SciELO databases were screened up to April 2021. Eligibility criteria included in vitro studies reporting the antibacterial activity of disinfectant solutions in dental impression materials. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3.5). A global comparison was performed with the standardized mean difference based on random-effect models at a significance level of α = 0.05. A total of seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies described the effect of disinfection processes with chlorhexidine gluconate, alcohol, sodium hypochlorite, glutaraldehyde, and hydrogen peroxide in alginate, polyvinyl siloxane, and polyether impression materials. The meta-analyses showed that the use of chlorhexidine, alcohol, glutaraldehyde, and sodium hypochlorite reduced the colony-forming units by a milliliter (CFU/mL) in alginate (p < 0.001). On the other hand, glutaraldehyde, sodium hypochlorite, and alcohol reduced the CFU/mL in polyvinyl siloxane (p < 0.001). Finally, alcohol and glutaraldehyde reduced the CFU/mL in polyether material (p < 0.001). High heterogenicity was observed for the alginate and polyvinyl siloxane materials (I2 = 74%; I2 = 90%). Based on these in vitro studies, the disinfection of impression materials with several disinfection agents reduces the CFU/mL count.

Bactericidal and virucidal activity of ethanol and povidone-iodine

Ethanol and povidone‐iodine (PVP‐I) are important microbicides that inactivate bacteria and viruses. The present study provides a review of literature data on the concentration‐dependent bactericidal and virucidal activity of ethanol and PVP‐I in vitro. A systematic search was performed using the meta‐database for biomedicine PubMed. Eventually, 74 studies with original data on the reduction of bacterial and viral infectivity using in vitro tests were analyzed. A safe bactericidal effect of ethanol can be expected at concentrations between 60% and 85%, and the exposure times vary between ≤0.5 and ≥5 min. Within an exposure of up to 5 min, 80%–90% ethanol also exerts virucidal/low‐level activity, which includes its action against enveloped viruses plus adeno‐, noro‐, and rotaviruses. For PVP‐I, the best bactericidal and virucidal/high‐level effect is present at a concentration range of approx. 0.08%–0.9% depending on the free iodine concentration. The maximum exposure times are 5 min for bacteria and 60 min for viruses. The available data may help optimize the significant inactivation of bacteria and viruses in various areas. However, as the conditions in application practice can vary, concrete recommendations for the application can only be derived to a limited extent.

Comprehensive Review and Comparison of the Disinfection Techniques Currently Available in the Literature

The goal of disinfection in the dental office is to prevent the spread of infection from one patient to another and maintain the safety of the dental care providers. Prevention of cross infection has significant effect on infection control. The standard procedure of rinsing impressions under tap water immediately after removal from the mouth eliminates microorganisms along with saliva and blood. A broad search on published literature was done using the keywords impression materials, disinfection method, and sterilization of dental impression from 1980 to 2016 in Medline, Google Scholar, the internet, and textbooks. This article critically analyzes the various published methods of dental impression disinfection in dentistry.

Antimicrobial activity of polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate in comparison to chlorhexidine using the quantitative suspension method

Background

Polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate (PHMG-P) belongs to the polymeric guanidine family of biocides and contains a phosphate group, which may confer better solubility, a detoxifying effect and may change the kinetics and dynamics of PHMG-P interactions with microorganisms. Limited data regarding PHMG-P activity against periodontopathogenic and cariogenic microorganisms necessitates studies in this area. Aim is to evaluate polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate antimicrobial activity in comparison to chlorhexidine.

Methods

Quantitative suspension method was used enrolling Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Candida albicans, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus.

Results

Both tested antiseptics at their clinically-used concentrations, of 0.2% (w/v) and 1% (w/v), correspondingly provided swift bactericidal effects against S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, E. coli andC. albicans, A. actinomycetemcomitans and P. gingivalis with reduction factors higher than 6.0. Diluted polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate and chlorhexidine to 0.05% continued to display anti-bacterial activity and decreased titers of standard quality control, periopathogens to below 1.0 × 10³ colony forming units/ml, albeit requiring prolonged exposure time. To achieve a bactericidal effect against S. mutans, both antiseptics at all concentrations required a longer exposure time. We found that a clinically-used 1% of polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate concentration did not have activity against L. acidophilus.

Conclusion

High RF of polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate and retention of bactericidal effects, even at 0.05%, support the use of polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate as a biocide with sufficient anti-microbial activity against periopathogens. Polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate displayed bactericidal activity against periopathogens and S. mutans and could potentially be applied in the management of oral diseases.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12941-015-0097-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Low-cost periodontal therapy

Periodontitis is a complex infectious disease that affects low-income individuals disproportionately. Periodontitis is associated with specific bacterial species and herpesviruses, and successful prevention and treatment of the disease is contingent upon effective control of these pathogens. This article presents an efficacious, highly safe, minimally invasive, practical and low-cost periodontal therapy that involves professional and patient-administered mechanical therapy and antimicrobial agents. The major components are scaling for calculus removal, periodontal pocket irrigation with potent antiseptics, and treatment with systemic antibiotics for advanced disease. Povidone-iodine and sodium hypochlorite have all the characteristics for becoming the first-choice antiseptics in the management of periodontal diseases. Both agents show excellent antibacterial and antiviral properties, are readily available throughout the world, have been safely used in periodontal therapy for decades, offer significant benefits for individuals with very limited financial resources, and are well accepted by most dental professionals and patients. Four per cent chlorhexidine applied with a toothbrush to the most posterior part to the tongue dorsum can markedly reduce or eliminate halitosis in most individuals. Systemic antibiotics are used to treat periodontopathic bacteria that are not readily reached by topical therapy, such as pathogens within gingival tissue, within furcation defects, at the base of periodontal pockets, and on the tongue, tonsils and buccal mucosae. Valuable antibiotic therapies are amoxicillin-metronidazole (250 mg of amoxicillin and 250 mg of metronidazole, three times daily for 8 days) for young and middle-aged patients, and ciprofloxacin-metronidazole (500 mg of each, twice daily for 8 days) for elderly patients and for patients in developing countries who frequently harbor enteric rods subgingivally. Scaling to remove dental calculus and the prudent use of inexpensive antimicrobial agents can significantly retard or arrest progressive periodontitis in the great majority of patients.

Wound biofilms: lessons learned from oral biofilms

Biofilms play an important role in the development and pathogenesis of many chronic infections. Oral biofilms, more commonly known as dental plaque, are a primary cause of oral diseases including caries, gingivitis, and periodontitis. Oral biofilms are commonly studied as model biofilm systems as they are easily accessible; thus, biofilm research in oral diseases is advanced with details of biofilm formation and bacterial interactions being well elucidated. In contrast, wound research has relatively recently directed attention to the role biofilms have in chronic wounds. This review discusses the biofilms in periodontal disease and chronic wounds with comparisons focusing on biofilm detection, biofilm formation, the immune response to biofilms, bacterial interaction, and quorum sensing. Current treatment modalities used by both fields and future therapies are also discussed.

Potentials of mouthwashes in disinfecting cariogenic bacteria and biofilms leading to inhibition of caries

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of certain commercially available mouthwashes on cariogenic bacteria and biofilms, following the acquisition of inhibition potentials of caries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mouthwashes containing I) chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG; 0.0005% w/v), II) benzethonium chloride (BTC; 0.01% w/v), III) an essential oil (Listerine), and IV) povidone-iodine (PVP-I; 0.035% w/v) were tested on planktonic cariogenic bacteria, biofilms, and an ex vivo caries model. Bacterial aliquots were inoculated with each solution separately and vortexed for 10 seconds at room temperature. Bacterial viability was subsequently investigated by fluorescence microscopy (FM) after staining with a BacLight viability kit and the number of colony-forming units (CFUs) was counted. Similarly, mouthwash solutions were applied to artificial cariogenic biofilms, and bacterial viability of the biofilms was investigated as stated above. Inhibition potentials of two selected mouthwashes of carious lesions were investigated using biofilm-induced caries and a secondary caries model. In all steps, a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution was included as a control.

RESULTS

Planktonic cariogenic bacteria and bacteria embedded in biofilms were killed in remarkably large numbers with Listerine and PVP-I treatment compared to PBS and other gargles. CFU counts also showed significant reduction after treatment with Listerine and PVP-I compared to other solutions (P<0.05). Listerine also displayed significant (P<0.05) inhibition effects in preventing the progression of demineralization.

CONCLUSION

Bactericidal potencies of the mouthwashes varied significantly, suggesting that mouthwashes like Listerine can be useful for the prevention of caries and secondary caries.