Exploring Mechanisms of Biofilm Removal

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of a novel anti-plaque formulation on oral biofilm removal. Specific aim was to elucidate the role of 2 potentially complementary mechanisms on dental biofilm removal using EPIEN Dental Debriding Solution (EDDS) like desiccating action leading to denaturation and destabilization of plaque and mechanical removal of destabilized plaque through forceful rinsing action MATERIALS AND METHODS: 25 extracted teeth, after routine debriding and cleaning, underwent standard biofilm incubation model over 4 days. Then samples were randomly divided into 5 groups of 5 teeth each, treated and stained with GUM(®)Red-Cote(®) plaque disclosing solution and imaged. Samples were subsequently treated with HYBENX(®) Oral Decontaminant. Group 1 samples were treated with a standardized “static” water dip exposure following biofilm incubation. Samples in Group 2 were given a standardized “dynamic” exposure to a dental high pressure air/water syringe for 20 s. Group 3 samples were exposed to a standardized “static” application of test agent (30 s dip rinse) followed by a standardized “static” water rinse (30 s dip rinse). Samples in Group 4 were given both the standardized “static” application of test formulation followed by the standardized “dynamic” exposure to a dental high pressure air/water syringe. Finally, samples in Group 5 were treated with a standardized “dynamic” application of test agent (20 s high pressure syringe at 10 ml/s) followed by the standardized “dynamic” exposure to a dental high pressure air/water syringe. RESULTS: The MPM images demonstrated that the water dip treatment resulted in the persistence of an almost continuous thick layer of biofilm coverage on the tooth surface. Similarly, test agent dip treatment followed by water dip only removed a few patches of biofilm, with the majority of the tooth surface remaining covered by an otherwise continuous layer of biofilm. Samples exposed to air/water spray alone showed some disruption of the biofilm, leaving residual patches of biofilm that varied considerably in size. Test agent dip treatment followed by air/water spray broke up the continuous layer of biofilm leaving only very small, thin scattered islands of biofilm. Finally, the dynamic test agent spray followed by air/water spray removed the biofilm almost entirely, with evidence of only very few small, thin residual biofilm islands. CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrate that test agent desiccant effect alone causes some disruption of dental biofilm. Additional dynamic rinsing is needed to achieve complete removal of dental biofilm.