Cargando…

Devices for In situ Development of Non-disturbed Oral Biofilm. A Systematic Review

Objective: The aim of this review was to assess the types of devices used for in situ development of oral biofilm analyzed microbiologically. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify all in situ studies of oral biofilm which used an oral device; the Ovid...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prada-López, Isabel, Quintas, Víctor, Vilaboa, Carlos, Suárez-Quintanilla, David, Tomás, Inmaculada
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4949230/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27486437
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01055
_version_ 1782443389630808064
author Prada-López, Isabel
Quintas, Víctor
Vilaboa, Carlos
Suárez-Quintanilla, David
Tomás, Inmaculada
author_facet Prada-López, Isabel
Quintas, Víctor
Vilaboa, Carlos
Suárez-Quintanilla, David
Tomás, Inmaculada
author_sort Prada-López, Isabel
collection PubMed
description Objective: The aim of this review was to assess the types of devices used for in situ development of oral biofilm analyzed microbiologically. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify all in situ studies of oral biofilm which used an oral device; the Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases complemented with manual search were used. Specific devices used to microbiologically analyze oral biofilm in adults were included. After reading of the selected full texts, devices were identified and classified according to the oral cavity zone and manufacturing material. The “ideal” characteristics were analyzed in every group. Results: The search provided 787 abstracts, of which 111 papers were included. The devices used in these studies were classified as palatal, lingual or buccal. The last group was sub-classified in six groups based on the material of the device. Considering the analyzed characteristics, the thermoplastic devices and the Intraoral Device of Overlaid Disk-holding Splints (IDODS) presented more advantages than limitations. Conclusions: Buccal devices were the most commonly used for the study of in situ biofilm. The majority of buccal devices seemed to slightly affect the volunteer's comfort, the IDODS being the closest to the “ideal” model. Clinical Relevance: New devices for in situ oral biofilm microbiological studies should take into account the possible effect of their design on the volunteer's comfort and biofilm formation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4949230
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49492302016-08-02 Devices for In situ Development of Non-disturbed Oral Biofilm. A Systematic Review Prada-López, Isabel Quintas, Víctor Vilaboa, Carlos Suárez-Quintanilla, David Tomás, Inmaculada Front Microbiol Public Health Objective: The aim of this review was to assess the types of devices used for in situ development of oral biofilm analyzed microbiologically. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify all in situ studies of oral biofilm which used an oral device; the Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases complemented with manual search were used. Specific devices used to microbiologically analyze oral biofilm in adults were included. After reading of the selected full texts, devices were identified and classified according to the oral cavity zone and manufacturing material. The “ideal” characteristics were analyzed in every group. Results: The search provided 787 abstracts, of which 111 papers were included. The devices used in these studies were classified as palatal, lingual or buccal. The last group was sub-classified in six groups based on the material of the device. Considering the analyzed characteristics, the thermoplastic devices and the Intraoral Device of Overlaid Disk-holding Splints (IDODS) presented more advantages than limitations. Conclusions: Buccal devices were the most commonly used for the study of in situ biofilm. The majority of buccal devices seemed to slightly affect the volunteer's comfort, the IDODS being the closest to the “ideal” model. Clinical Relevance: New devices for in situ oral biofilm microbiological studies should take into account the possible effect of their design on the volunteer's comfort and biofilm formation. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4949230/ /pubmed/27486437 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01055 Text en Copyright © 2016 Prada-López, Quintas, Vilaboa, Suárez-Quintanilla and Tomás. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Public Health
Prada-López, Isabel
Quintas, Víctor
Vilaboa, Carlos
Suárez-Quintanilla, David
Tomás, Inmaculada
Devices for In situ Development of Non-disturbed Oral Biofilm. A Systematic Review
title Devices for In situ Development of Non-disturbed Oral Biofilm. A Systematic Review
title_full Devices for In situ Development of Non-disturbed Oral Biofilm. A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Devices for In situ Development of Non-disturbed Oral Biofilm. A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Devices for In situ Development of Non-disturbed Oral Biofilm. A Systematic Review
title_short Devices for In situ Development of Non-disturbed Oral Biofilm. A Systematic Review
title_sort devices for in situ development of non-disturbed oral biofilm. a systematic review
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4949230/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27486437
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01055
work_keys_str_mv AT pradalopezisabel devicesforinsitudevelopmentofnondisturbedoralbiofilmasystematicreview
AT quintasvictor devicesforinsitudevelopmentofnondisturbedoralbiofilmasystematicreview
AT vilaboacarlos devicesforinsitudevelopmentofnondisturbedoralbiofilmasystematicreview
AT suarezquintanilladavid devicesforinsitudevelopmentofnondisturbedoralbiofilmasystematicreview
AT tomasinmaculada devicesforinsitudevelopmentofnondisturbedoralbiofilmasystematicreview