Food Preservatives (and effects on) Dental Biofilms and Enamel Degradation

The Silent Role of Biofilms in Chronic Disease Forums Biofilm Community The DENT Connection Food Preservatives (and effects on) Dental Biofilms and Enamel Degradation

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Harrison 6 years, 1 month ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #3311 Score: 0

    Harrison
    Keymaster
      2 pts

      Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Aug 2. [Epub ahead of print]
      Action of food preservatives on 14-days dental biofilm formation, biofilm vitality and biofilm-derived enamel demineralisation in situ.

      Arweiler NB, Netuschil L, Beier D, Grunert S, Heumann C, Altenburger MJ, Sculean A, Nagy K, Al-Ahmad A, Auschill TM.

      Department of Periodontology, Dental School, Philipps University, Georg-Voigt Straße 3, 35033, Marburg, Germany, arweiler@med.uni-marburg.de.


      AIMS:

      The aims of this double-blind, controlled, crossover study were to assess the influence of food preservatives on in situ dental biofilm growth and vitality, and to evaluate their influence on the ability of dental biofilm to demineralize underlying enamel over a period of 14 days.

      MATERIALS AND METHODS:

      Twenty volunteers wore appliances with six specimens each of bovine enamel to build up intra-oral biofilms. During four test cycles of 14 days, the subjects had to place the appliance in one of the assigned controls or active solutions twice a day for a minute: negative control 0.9 % saline, 0.1 % benzoate (BA), 0.1 % sorbate (SA) and 0.2 % chlorhexidine (CHX positive control). After 14 days, the biofilms on two of the slabs were stained to visualize vital and dead bacteria to assess biofilm thickness (BT) and bacterial vitality (BV). Further, slabs were taken to determine mineral loss (ML), by quantitative light-induced laser fluorescence (QLF) and transversal microradiography (TMR), moreover the lesion depths (LD).

      RESULTS:

      Nineteen subjects completed all test cycles. Use of SA, BA and CHX resulted in a significantly reduced BV compared to NaCl (p <  0.001). Only CHX exerted a statistically significant retardation in BT as compared to saline. Differences between SA and BA were not significant (p > 0.05) for both parameters. TMR analysis revealed the highest LD values in the NaCl group (43.6 ± 44.2 μm) and the lowest with CHX (11.7 ± 39.4 μm), while SA (22.9 ± 45.2 μm) and BA (21.4 ± 38.5 μm) lay in between. Similarly for ML, the highest mean values of 128.1 ± 207.3 vol% μm were assessed for NaCl, the lowest for CHX (-16.8 ± 284.2 vol% μm), while SA and BA led to values of 83.2 ± 150.9 and 98.4 ± 191.2 vol% μm, respectively. With QLF for both controls, NaCl (-33.8 ± 101.3 mm2 %) and CHX (-16.9 ± 69.9 mm2 %), negative values were recorded reflecting a diminution of fluorescence, while positive values were found with SA (33.9 ± 158.2 mm2 %) and BA (24.8 ± 118.0 mm2 %) depicting a fluorescence gain. These differences were non-significant (p > 0.05).

      CONCLUSION:

      The biofilm model permited the assessment of undisturbed oral biofilm formation influenced by antibacterial components under clinical conditions for a period of 14 days. An effect of BA and SA on the demineralization of enamel could be demonstrated by TMR and QLF, but these new findings have to be seen as a trend. As part of our daily diet, these preservatives exert an impact on the metabolism of the dental biofilm, and therefore may even influence demineralization processes of the underlying dental enamel in situ.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.