An in vitro Oral Biofilm Model for Comparing the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Mouthrinses

The ability of commercial mouthrinses to reduce total viable counts of mixed microbial populations was examined using a previously developed in vitro model of supragingival plaque. Exploratory experiments aimed at fine-tuning the model indicated that optimal correspondence between in vitro and clini...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Caries research 2002-03, Vol.36 (2), p.93-100
Hauptverfasser: Shapiro, S., Giertsen, E., Guggenheim, B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 100
container_issue 2
container_start_page 93
container_title Caries research
container_volume 36
creator Shapiro, S.
Giertsen, E.
Guggenheim, B.
description The ability of commercial mouthrinses to reduce total viable counts of mixed microbial populations was examined using a previously developed in vitro model of supragingival plaque. Exploratory experiments aimed at fine-tuning the model indicated that optimal correspondence between in vitro and clinical results for chlorhexidine-containing formulations were obtained at a saliva:medium ratio of 70:30 (v/v); moreover, expanding the microbial population from 5 bacterial species to 5 bacterial species + Candida albicans had no noticeable impact on overall results. The efficacies of 12 different mouthrinse proprietary products containing chlorhexidine, hexetidine, octenidine, Triclosan, plant extracts, or aminefluoride/stannous fluoride vis-à-vis biofilm clearance were compared. All mouthrinses promoted a statistically significant reduction in microbial load compared to distilled water. The herbal- and phenolic-based products were substantially less effective than most chlorhexidine-containing mouthrinses, or mouthrinses containing hexetidine or octenidine. No significant difference between the plaque-clearing plaque-clearing abilities of Listerine ® and Meridol ® was observed. This polyspecies biofilm model can be a valuable tool for preclinical testing of antiplaque formulations, particularly during the product development stage.
doi_str_mv 10.1159/000057866
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_karge</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_220211627</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71750439</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-46be26da7b7a89078c57f3ee99724f7aa6e9b39f3895c286fa22766e6fd8621b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0c9LHDEUB_BQlLraHnouSPAgeJg2PyYvyXG7rD9AEYqW3obMTKLRmcmazBT87027qwURfJfAy-c9eHwR-kLJN0qF_k5yCakAPqAZLRkttITfW2iW26oAAWoH7aZ0RwgtAdRHtEMZ4ZKDmKFf8wH7Af_xYwz4MpoO__DB-a7HF6G1HXYh4kXoVyb64QaPtxYvnfONaR5xcHg-jL73TQy1z5MXYRpvs0s2fULbznTJft68e-j6eHm1OC3OL0_OFvPzoikFG4sSasugNbKWRmkiVSOk49ZqLVnppDFgdc2140qLhilwhjEJYMG1Chit-R46XO9dxfAw2TRWvU-N7Toz2DClSlIpSMn1u5AqqQSRPMODV_AuTHHIR1SMEUYpMJnR0Rrl01OK1lWr6HsTHytKqr-RVC-RZLu_WTjVvW3_y00GGXxdg3sTb2x8Ac_jB2_-Ln4u_4Fq1Tr-BP-GmQI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>220211627</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An in vitro Oral Biofilm Model for Comparing the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Mouthrinses</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Karger Journals Complete</source><creator>Shapiro, S. ; Giertsen, E. ; Guggenheim, B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Shapiro, S. ; Giertsen, E. ; Guggenheim, B.</creatorcontrib><description>The ability of commercial mouthrinses to reduce total viable counts of mixed microbial populations was examined using a previously developed in vitro model of supragingival plaque. Exploratory experiments aimed at fine-tuning the model indicated that optimal correspondence between in vitro and clinical results for chlorhexidine-containing formulations were obtained at a saliva:medium ratio of 70:30 (v/v); moreover, expanding the microbial population from 5 bacterial species to 5 bacterial species + Candida albicans had no noticeable impact on overall results. The efficacies of 12 different mouthrinse proprietary products containing chlorhexidine, hexetidine, octenidine, Triclosan, plant extracts, or aminefluoride/stannous fluoride vis-à-vis biofilm clearance were compared. All mouthrinses promoted a statistically significant reduction in microbial load compared to distilled water. The herbal- and phenolic-based products were substantially less effective than most chlorhexidine-containing mouthrinses, or mouthrinses containing hexetidine or octenidine. No significant difference between the plaque-clearing plaque-clearing abilities of Listerine ® and Meridol ® was observed. This polyspecies biofilm model can be a valuable tool for preclinical testing of antiplaque formulations, particularly during the product development stage.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-6568</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1421-976X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1159/000057866</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12037365</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CAREBK</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG</publisher><subject>Anti-Infective Agents, Local - pharmacology ; Bacteria - drug effects ; Biofilms - drug effects ; Chlorhexidine - pharmacology ; Colony Count, Microbial ; Dental Plaque - microbiology ; Dentistry ; Drug Evaluation, Preclinical - methods ; Fluorides, Topical - pharmacology ; Hexetidine - pharmacology ; Microbial Sensitivity Tests ; Models, Biological ; Mouthwashes - pharmacology ; Original Paper ; Phenols - pharmacology ; Plant Extracts - pharmacology ; Pyridines - pharmacology ; Saliva ; Statistics, Nonparametric ; Tin Fluorides - pharmacology ; Triclosan - pharmacology</subject><ispartof>Caries research, 2002-03, Vol.36 (2), p.93-100</ispartof><rights>2002 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><rights>Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><rights>Copyright S. Karger AG Mar/Apr 2002</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-46be26da7b7a89078c57f3ee99724f7aa6e9b39f3895c286fa22766e6fd8621b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-46be26da7b7a89078c57f3ee99724f7aa6e9b39f3895c286fa22766e6fd8621b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,2429,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12037365$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shapiro, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giertsen, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guggenheim, B.</creatorcontrib><title>An in vitro Oral Biofilm Model for Comparing the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Mouthrinses</title><title>Caries research</title><addtitle>Caries Res</addtitle><description>The ability of commercial mouthrinses to reduce total viable counts of mixed microbial populations was examined using a previously developed in vitro model of supragingival plaque. Exploratory experiments aimed at fine-tuning the model indicated that optimal correspondence between in vitro and clinical results for chlorhexidine-containing formulations were obtained at a saliva:medium ratio of 70:30 (v/v); moreover, expanding the microbial population from 5 bacterial species to 5 bacterial species + Candida albicans had no noticeable impact on overall results. The efficacies of 12 different mouthrinse proprietary products containing chlorhexidine, hexetidine, octenidine, Triclosan, plant extracts, or aminefluoride/stannous fluoride vis-à-vis biofilm clearance were compared. All mouthrinses promoted a statistically significant reduction in microbial load compared to distilled water. The herbal- and phenolic-based products were substantially less effective than most chlorhexidine-containing mouthrinses, or mouthrinses containing hexetidine or octenidine. No significant difference between the plaque-clearing plaque-clearing abilities of Listerine ® and Meridol ® was observed. This polyspecies biofilm model can be a valuable tool for preclinical testing of antiplaque formulations, particularly during the product development stage.</description><subject>Anti-Infective Agents, Local - pharmacology</subject><subject>Bacteria - drug effects</subject><subject>Biofilms - drug effects</subject><subject>Chlorhexidine - pharmacology</subject><subject>Colony Count, Microbial</subject><subject>Dental Plaque - microbiology</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Drug Evaluation, Preclinical - methods</subject><subject>Fluorides, Topical - pharmacology</subject><subject>Hexetidine - pharmacology</subject><subject>Microbial Sensitivity Tests</subject><subject>Models, Biological</subject><subject>Mouthwashes - pharmacology</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Phenols - pharmacology</subject><subject>Plant Extracts - pharmacology</subject><subject>Pyridines - pharmacology</subject><subject>Saliva</subject><subject>Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><subject>Tin Fluorides - pharmacology</subject><subject>Triclosan - pharmacology</subject><issn>0008-6568</issn><issn>1421-976X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0c9LHDEUB_BQlLraHnouSPAgeJg2PyYvyXG7rD9AEYqW3obMTKLRmcmazBT87027qwURfJfAy-c9eHwR-kLJN0qF_k5yCakAPqAZLRkttITfW2iW26oAAWoH7aZ0RwgtAdRHtEMZ4ZKDmKFf8wH7Af_xYwz4MpoO__DB-a7HF6G1HXYh4kXoVyb64QaPtxYvnfONaR5xcHg-jL73TQy1z5MXYRpvs0s2fULbznTJft68e-j6eHm1OC3OL0_OFvPzoikFG4sSasugNbKWRmkiVSOk49ZqLVnppDFgdc2140qLhilwhjEJYMG1Chit-R46XO9dxfAw2TRWvU-N7Toz2DClSlIpSMn1u5AqqQSRPMODV_AuTHHIR1SMEUYpMJnR0Rrl01OK1lWr6HsTHytKqr-RVC-RZLu_WTjVvW3_y00GGXxdg3sTb2x8Ac_jB2_-Ln4u_4Fq1Tr-BP-GmQI</recordid><startdate>20020301</startdate><enddate>20020301</enddate><creator>Shapiro, S.</creator><creator>Giertsen, E.</creator><creator>Guggenheim, B.</creator><general>S. Karger AG</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020301</creationdate><title>An in vitro Oral Biofilm Model for Comparing the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Mouthrinses</title><author>Shapiro, S. ; Giertsen, E. ; Guggenheim, B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-46be26da7b7a89078c57f3ee99724f7aa6e9b39f3895c286fa22766e6fd8621b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Anti-Infective Agents, Local - pharmacology</topic><topic>Bacteria - drug effects</topic><topic>Biofilms - drug effects</topic><topic>Chlorhexidine - pharmacology</topic><topic>Colony Count, Microbial</topic><topic>Dental Plaque - microbiology</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Drug Evaluation, Preclinical - methods</topic><topic>Fluorides, Topical - pharmacology</topic><topic>Hexetidine - pharmacology</topic><topic>Microbial Sensitivity Tests</topic><topic>Models, Biological</topic><topic>Mouthwashes - pharmacology</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Phenols - pharmacology</topic><topic>Plant Extracts - pharmacology</topic><topic>Pyridines - pharmacology</topic><topic>Saliva</topic><topic>Statistics, Nonparametric</topic><topic>Tin Fluorides - pharmacology</topic><topic>Triclosan - pharmacology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shapiro, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giertsen, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guggenheim, B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Caries research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shapiro, S.</au><au>Giertsen, E.</au><au>Guggenheim, B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An in vitro Oral Biofilm Model for Comparing the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Mouthrinses</atitle><jtitle>Caries research</jtitle><addtitle>Caries Res</addtitle><date>2002-03-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>93</spage><epage>100</epage><pages>93-100</pages><issn>0008-6568</issn><eissn>1421-976X</eissn><coden>CAREBK</coden><abstract>The ability of commercial mouthrinses to reduce total viable counts of mixed microbial populations was examined using a previously developed in vitro model of supragingival plaque. Exploratory experiments aimed at fine-tuning the model indicated that optimal correspondence between in vitro and clinical results for chlorhexidine-containing formulations were obtained at a saliva:medium ratio of 70:30 (v/v); moreover, expanding the microbial population from 5 bacterial species to 5 bacterial species + Candida albicans had no noticeable impact on overall results. The efficacies of 12 different mouthrinse proprietary products containing chlorhexidine, hexetidine, octenidine, Triclosan, plant extracts, or aminefluoride/stannous fluoride vis-à-vis biofilm clearance were compared. All mouthrinses promoted a statistically significant reduction in microbial load compared to distilled water. The herbal- and phenolic-based products were substantially less effective than most chlorhexidine-containing mouthrinses, or mouthrinses containing hexetidine or octenidine. No significant difference between the plaque-clearing plaque-clearing abilities of Listerine ® and Meridol ® was observed. This polyspecies biofilm model can be a valuable tool for preclinical testing of antiplaque formulations, particularly during the product development stage.</abstract><cop>Basel, Switzerland</cop><pub>S. Karger AG</pub><pmid>12037365</pmid><doi>10.1159/000057866</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0008-6568
ispartof Caries research, 2002-03, Vol.36 (2), p.93-100
issn 0008-6568
1421-976X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_220211627
source MEDLINE; Karger Journals Complete
subjects Anti-Infective Agents, Local - pharmacology
Bacteria - drug effects
Biofilms - drug effects
Chlorhexidine - pharmacology
Colony Count, Microbial
Dental Plaque - microbiology
Dentistry
Drug Evaluation, Preclinical - methods
Fluorides, Topical - pharmacology
Hexetidine - pharmacology
Microbial Sensitivity Tests
Models, Biological
Mouthwashes - pharmacology
Original Paper
Phenols - pharmacology
Plant Extracts - pharmacology
Pyridines - pharmacology
Saliva
Statistics, Nonparametric
Tin Fluorides - pharmacology
Triclosan - pharmacology
title An in vitro Oral Biofilm Model for Comparing the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Mouthrinses
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T20%3A22%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_karge&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20in%20vitro%20Oral%20Biofilm%20Model%20for%20Comparing%20the%20Efficacy%20of%20Antimicrobial%20Mouthrinses&rft.jtitle=Caries%20research&rft.au=Shapiro,%20S.&rft.date=2002-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=93&rft.epage=100&rft.pages=93-100&rft.issn=0008-6568&rft.eissn=1421-976X&rft.coden=CAREBK&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159/000057866&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_karge%3E71750439%3C/proquest_karge%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=220211627&rft_id=info:pmid/12037365&rfr_iscdi=true