Cargando…

Impact of honey on dental erosion and adhesion of early bacterial colonizers

The aim was to investigate if honey causes erosion and if salivary pellicle modified with honey, or its components, or the by-product propolis has a protective effect against dental erosion and adhesion of early bacterial colonizers. The tested substances were: 3 types of honey, methylglyoxal (MGO),...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Habluetzel, Alexandra, Schmid, Christoph, Carvalho, Thiago S., Lussi, Adrian, Eick, Sigrun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053432/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30026515
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29188-x
_version_ 1783340820046282752
author Habluetzel, Alexandra
Schmid, Christoph
Carvalho, Thiago S.
Lussi, Adrian
Eick, Sigrun
author_facet Habluetzel, Alexandra
Schmid, Christoph
Carvalho, Thiago S.
Lussi, Adrian
Eick, Sigrun
author_sort Habluetzel, Alexandra
collection PubMed
description The aim was to investigate if honey causes erosion and if salivary pellicle modified with honey, or its components, or the by-product propolis has a protective effect against dental erosion and adhesion of early bacterial colonizers. The tested substances were: 3 types of honey, methylglyoxal (MGO), hydrogen peroxide, propolis. First in the erosion experiment, 120 human enamel specimens were covered with salivary pellicle and modified with the substances. Then they were eroded with 1% citric acid, pH 3.6 for 2 min, before surface hardness was measured. In the microbiological assay, the enamel specimens (n = 126) covered with modified salivary pellicle were contaminated with bacterial suspensions. The antimicrobial activity of each substance and their effect on early bacterial colonizer adhesion and biofilm formation were determined. Despite a low pH, honey did not cause erosion. On the other hand, pellicle modification with the tested solutions did not protect the enamel from erosion. Microbiologically, the 3 honeys inhibited species-specific growth of oral bacteria. Propolis decreased initial attachment of Streptococcus gordonii, while one honey inhibited demineralization of enamel by biofilm. In conclusion, pellicle modification with honey, or its components, or propolis did neither protect against erosion nor promote it. Propolis presented some bacterial adhesion inhibition.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6053432
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60534322018-07-23 Impact of honey on dental erosion and adhesion of early bacterial colonizers Habluetzel, Alexandra Schmid, Christoph Carvalho, Thiago S. Lussi, Adrian Eick, Sigrun Sci Rep Article The aim was to investigate if honey causes erosion and if salivary pellicle modified with honey, or its components, or the by-product propolis has a protective effect against dental erosion and adhesion of early bacterial colonizers. The tested substances were: 3 types of honey, methylglyoxal (MGO), hydrogen peroxide, propolis. First in the erosion experiment, 120 human enamel specimens were covered with salivary pellicle and modified with the substances. Then they were eroded with 1% citric acid, pH 3.6 for 2 min, before surface hardness was measured. In the microbiological assay, the enamel specimens (n = 126) covered with modified salivary pellicle were contaminated with bacterial suspensions. The antimicrobial activity of each substance and their effect on early bacterial colonizer adhesion and biofilm formation were determined. Despite a low pH, honey did not cause erosion. On the other hand, pellicle modification with the tested solutions did not protect the enamel from erosion. Microbiologically, the 3 honeys inhibited species-specific growth of oral bacteria. Propolis decreased initial attachment of Streptococcus gordonii, while one honey inhibited demineralization of enamel by biofilm. In conclusion, pellicle modification with honey, or its components, or propolis did neither protect against erosion nor promote it. Propolis presented some bacterial adhesion inhibition. Nature Publishing Group UK 2018-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6053432/ /pubmed/30026515 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29188-x Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Habluetzel, Alexandra
Schmid, Christoph
Carvalho, Thiago S.
Lussi, Adrian
Eick, Sigrun
Impact of honey on dental erosion and adhesion of early bacterial colonizers
title Impact of honey on dental erosion and adhesion of early bacterial colonizers
title_full Impact of honey on dental erosion and adhesion of early bacterial colonizers
title_fullStr Impact of honey on dental erosion and adhesion of early bacterial colonizers
title_full_unstemmed Impact of honey on dental erosion and adhesion of early bacterial colonizers
title_short Impact of honey on dental erosion and adhesion of early bacterial colonizers
title_sort impact of honey on dental erosion and adhesion of early bacterial colonizers
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053432/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30026515
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29188-x
work_keys_str_mv AT habluetzelalexandra impactofhoneyondentalerosionandadhesionofearlybacterialcolonizers
AT schmidchristoph impactofhoneyondentalerosionandadhesionofearlybacterialcolonizers
AT carvalhothiagos impactofhoneyondentalerosionandadhesionofearlybacterialcolonizers
AT lussiadrian impactofhoneyondentalerosionandadhesionofearlybacterialcolonizers
AT eicksigrun impactofhoneyondentalerosionandadhesionofearlybacterialcolonizers