Considering increasing number of pathogens resistant towards commonly used antibiotics as well as antiseptics, there is a pressing need for antimicrobial approaches that are capable of inactivating pathogens efficiently without the risk of inducing resistances. In this regard, an alternative approach is the antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT). The antimicrobial effect of aPDT is based on the principle that visible light activates a per se non-toxic molecule, the so-called photosensitizer (PS), resulting in generation of reactive oxygen species that kill bacteria unselectively via an oxidative burst. During the last 10-20 years, there has been extensive in vitro research on novel PS as well as light sources, which is now to be translated into clinics. In this review, we aim to provide an overview about the history of aPDT, its fundamental photochemical and photophysical mechanisms as well as photosensitizers and light sources that are currently applied for aPDT in vitro. Furthermore, the potential of resistances towards aPDT is extensively discussed and implications for proper comparison of in vitro studies regarding aPDT as well as for potential application fields in clinical practice are given. Overall, this review shall provide an outlook on future research directions needed for successful translation of promising in vitro results in aPDT towards clinical practice.

The threat of antibiotic resistance has attracted strong interest during the last two decades, thus stimulating stewardship programs and research on alternative antimicrobial therapies. Conversely, much less attention has been given to the directly related problem of resistance toward antiseptics and biocides. While bacterial resistances toward triclosan or quaternary ammonium compounds have been considered in this context, the bis-biguanide chlorhexidine (CHX) has been put into focus only very recently when its use was associated with emergence of stable resistance to the last-resort antibiotic colistin. The antimicrobial effect of CHX is based on damaging the bacterial cytoplasmic membrane and subsequent leakage of cytoplasmic material. Consequently, mechanisms conferring resistance toward CHX include multidrug efflux pumps and cell membrane changes. For instance, in staphylococci it has been shown that plasmid-borne qac (“quaternary ammonium compound”) genes encode Qac efflux proteins that recognize cationic antiseptics as substrates. In Pseudomonas stutzeri , changes in the outer membrane protein and lipopolysaccharide profiles have been implicated in CHX resistance. However, little is known about the risk of resistance toward CHX in oral bacteria and potential mechanisms conferring this resistance or even cross-resistances toward antibiotics. Interestingly, there is also little awareness about the risk of CHX resistance in the dental community even though CHX has been widely used in dental practice as the gold-standard antiseptic for more than 40 years and is also included in a wide range of oral care consumer products. This review provides an overview of general resistance mechanisms toward CHX and the evidence for CHX resistance in oral bacteria. Furthermore, this work aims to raise awareness among the dental community about the risk of resistance toward CHX and accompanying cross-resistance to antibiotics. We propose new research directions related to the effects of CHX on bacteria in oral biofilms.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

With increasing numbers of antibiotic-resistant pathogens all over the world there is a pressing need for strategies that are capable of inactivating biofilm-state pathogens with less potential of developing resistances in pathogens. Antimicrobial strategies of that kind are especially needed in dentistry in order to avoid the usage of antibiotics for treatment of periodontal, endodontic or mucosal topical infections caused by bacterial or yeast biofilms. One possible option could be the antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), whereby the lethal effect of aPDT is based on the principle that visible light activates a photosensitizer (PS), leading to the formation of reactive oxygen species, e.g., singlet oxygen, which induce phototoxicity immediately during illumination. Many compounds have been described as potential PS for aPDT against bacterial and yeast biofilms so far, but conflicting results have been reported. Therefore, the aim of the present review is to outline the actual state of the art regarding the potential of aPDT for inactivation of biofilms formed in vitro with a main focus on those formed by oral key pathogens and structured regarding the distinct types of PS.

Objectives SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by inhalation of droplets and aerosols. This puts healthcare professionals from specialties with close patient contact at high risk of nosocomial infections with SARS-CoV-2. In this context, preprocedural mouthrinses with hydrogen peroxide have been recommended before conducting intraoral procedures. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a 1% hydrogen peroxide mouthrinse on reducing the intraoral SARS-CoV-2 load. Methods Twelve out of 98 initially screened hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were included in this study. Intraoral viral load was determined by RT-PCR at baseline, whereupon patients had to gargle mouth and throat with 20 mL of 1% hydrogen peroxide for 30 s. After 30 min, a second examination of intraoral viral load was performed by RT-PCR. Furthermore, virus culture was performed for specimens exhibiting viral load of at least 103 RNA copies/mL at baseline. Results Ten out of the 12 initially included SARS-CoV-2-positive patients completed the study. The hydrogen peroxide mouthrinse led to no significant reduction of intraoral viral load. Replicating virus could only be determined from one baseline specimen. Conclusion A 1% hydrogen peroxide mouthrinse does not reduce the intraoral viral load in SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects. However, virus culture did not yield any indication on the effects of the mouthrinse on the infectivity of the detected RNA copies. Clinical relevance The recommendation of a preprocedural mouthrinse with hydrogen peroxide before intraoral procedures is questionable and thus should not be supported any longer, but strict infection prevention regimens are of paramount importance. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (ref. DRKS00022484)