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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wenzler, Johannes-Simon, Krause, Felix, Böcher, Sarah, Falk, Wolfgang, Birkenmaier, Axel, Conrads, Georg, Braun, Andreas
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