Cargando…
Antimicrobial Impact of Different Air-Polishing Powders in a Subgingival Biofilm Model
Subgingival air-polishing devices (SAPD) can reduce bacterial biofilms and thus support periodontal healing. The authors of this study evaluated the effectiveness of the glycine-based and trehalose-based air-polishing powders in removing pathogenic bacteria in a subgingival biofilm model. We treated...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8698523/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34943676 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10121464 |
_version_ | 1784620298490871808 |
---|---|
author | Wenzler, Johannes-Simon Krause, Felix Böcher, Sarah Falk, Wolfgang Birkenmaier, Axel Conrads, Georg Braun, Andreas |
author_facet | Wenzler, Johannes-Simon Krause, Felix Böcher, Sarah Falk, Wolfgang Birkenmaier, Axel Conrads, Georg Braun, Andreas |
author_sort | Wenzler, Johannes-Simon |
collection | PubMed |
description | Subgingival air-polishing devices (SAPD) can reduce bacterial biofilms and thus support periodontal healing. The authors of this study evaluated the effectiveness of the glycine-based and trehalose-based air-polishing powders in removing pathogenic bacteria in a subgingival biofilm model. We treated 56 subgingival pockets in porcine jaws with SAPD. Subgingival air polishing was performed in three groups of 13 pockets each: I, glycine-based powder; II, trehalose-based powder; and III, water alone. Another group (IV) served as untreated controls. Prior to air polishing, inoculated titanium bars were inserted into the pockets containing periopathogenic bacteria such as Porphyromonas gingivalis and Tannerella forsythia. Remaining bacteria were evaluated using real-time PCR. The numbers of remaining bacteria depended on the treatment procedure, with the lowest number of total bacteria in group I (median: 1.96 × 10(6) CFU; min: 1.46 × 10(5); max: 9.30 × 10(6)). Both polishing powders in groups I and II (median: 1.36 × 10(7) CFU; min: 5.22 × 10(5); max: 7.50 × 10(7)) showed a statistically significantly lower total bacterial load in comparison to both group IV (median: 2.02 × 10(8) CFU; min: 5.14 × 10(7); max: 4.51 × 10(8); p < 0.05) and group III (median: 4.58 × 10(7) CFU; min: 2.00 × 10(6); max: 3.06 × 10(8); p < 0.05). Both subgingival air-polishing powders investigated can reduce periopathogenic bacteria and thus support antimicrobial therapy approaches in periodontal treatment regimens. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8698523 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86985232021-12-24 Antimicrobial Impact of Different Air-Polishing Powders in a Subgingival Biofilm Model Wenzler, Johannes-Simon Krause, Felix Böcher, Sarah Falk, Wolfgang Birkenmaier, Axel Conrads, Georg Braun, Andreas Antibiotics (Basel) Article Subgingival air-polishing devices (SAPD) can reduce bacterial biofilms and thus support periodontal healing. The authors of this study evaluated the effectiveness of the glycine-based and trehalose-based air-polishing powders in removing pathogenic bacteria in a subgingival biofilm model. We treated 56 subgingival pockets in porcine jaws with SAPD. Subgingival air polishing was performed in three groups of 13 pockets each: I, glycine-based powder; II, trehalose-based powder; and III, water alone. Another group (IV) served as untreated controls. Prior to air polishing, inoculated titanium bars were inserted into the pockets containing periopathogenic bacteria such as Porphyromonas gingivalis and Tannerella forsythia. Remaining bacteria were evaluated using real-time PCR. The numbers of remaining bacteria depended on the treatment procedure, with the lowest number of total bacteria in group I (median: 1.96 × 10(6) CFU; min: 1.46 × 10(5); max: 9.30 × 10(6)). Both polishing powders in groups I and II (median: 1.36 × 10(7) CFU; min: 5.22 × 10(5); max: 7.50 × 10(7)) showed a statistically significantly lower total bacterial load in comparison to both group IV (median: 2.02 × 10(8) CFU; min: 5.14 × 10(7); max: 4.51 × 10(8); p < 0.05) and group III (median: 4.58 × 10(7) CFU; min: 2.00 × 10(6); max: 3.06 × 10(8); p < 0.05). Both subgingival air-polishing powders investigated can reduce periopathogenic bacteria and thus support antimicrobial therapy approaches in periodontal treatment regimens. MDPI 2021-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8698523/ /pubmed/34943676 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10121464 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Wenzler, Johannes-Simon Krause, Felix Böcher, Sarah Falk, Wolfgang Birkenmaier, Axel Conrads, Georg Braun, Andreas Antimicrobial Impact of Different Air-Polishing Powders in a Subgingival Biofilm Model |
title | Antimicrobial Impact of Different Air-Polishing Powders in a Subgingival Biofilm Model |
title_full | Antimicrobial Impact of Different Air-Polishing Powders in a Subgingival Biofilm Model |
title_fullStr | Antimicrobial Impact of Different Air-Polishing Powders in a Subgingival Biofilm Model |
title_full_unstemmed | Antimicrobial Impact of Different Air-Polishing Powders in a Subgingival Biofilm Model |
title_short | Antimicrobial Impact of Different Air-Polishing Powders in a Subgingival Biofilm Model |
title_sort | antimicrobial impact of different air-polishing powders in a subgingival biofilm model |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8698523/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34943676 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10121464 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wenzlerjohannessimon antimicrobialimpactofdifferentairpolishingpowdersinasubgingivalbiofilmmodel AT krausefelix antimicrobialimpactofdifferentairpolishingpowdersinasubgingivalbiofilmmodel AT bochersarah antimicrobialimpactofdifferentairpolishingpowdersinasubgingivalbiofilmmodel AT falkwolfgang antimicrobialimpactofdifferentairpolishingpowdersinasubgingivalbiofilmmodel AT birkenmaieraxel antimicrobialimpactofdifferentairpolishingpowdersinasubgingivalbiofilmmodel AT conradsgeorg antimicrobialimpactofdifferentairpolishingpowdersinasubgingivalbiofilmmodel AT braunandreas antimicrobialimpactofdifferentairpolishingpowdersinasubgingivalbiofilmmodel |