BackgroundAntimicrobial photodynamic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to suppress subgingival species. This results from the balance among Streptococcus sanguis, Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans in the dental biofilm. Not all the photosensitizers have the same photodynamic effect against the different microorganims. The objective of this study is to compare in vitro the photodynamic effect of methylene blue (MB), rose Bengal (RB) and curcumin (CUR) in combination with white light on the cariogenic microorganism S. mutans, S. sanguis and C. albicans.ResultsPhotodynamic therapy with MB, RB and CUR inhibited 6 log 10 the growth of both bacteria but at different concentrations: 0.31–0.62 μg/ml and 0.62–1.25 μg/ml RB were needed to photoinactivate S. mutans and S. sanguis, respectively; 1.25–2.5 μg/ml MB for both species; whereas higher CUR concentrations (80–160 μg/ml and 160–320 μg/ml) were required to obtain the same reduction in S. mutans and S. sanguis viability respectively. The minimal fungicidal concentration of MB for 5 log10 CFU reduction (4.5 McFarland) was 80–160 μg/ml, whereas for RB it ranged between 320 and 640 μg/ml. For CUR, even the maximum studied concentration (1280 μg/ml) did not reach that inhibition. Incubation time had no effect in all experiments.ConclusionsPhotodynamic therapy with RB, MB and CUR and white light is effective in killing S. mutans and S. sanguis strains, although MB and RB are more efficient than CUR. C. albicans required higher concentrations of all photosensitizers to obtain a fungicidal effect, being MB the most efficient and CUR ineffective.

Antibiotic treatments frequently fail due to the development of antibiotic resistance, underscoring the need for new treatment strategies. Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) could constitute an alternative therapy. In bacterial suspensions of Staphylococcus aureus, which is commonly implicated in cutaneous and mucosal infections, we evaluated the in vitro efficacy of aPDT, using the photosensitizing agents rose bengal (RB) or methylene blue (MB), alone or combined with the antibiotics mupirocin (MU) or linezolid (LN). RB or MB, at concentrations ranging from 0.03 to 10 μg/ml, were added to S. aureus ATCC 29213 suspensions containing >108 cells/ml, in the absence or presence of MU or LN (1 or 10 μg/ml). Suspensions were irradiated with a white metal halide (λ 420–700 nm) or light-emitting diode lamp (λ 515 and λ 625 nm), and the number of viable bacteria quantified by counting colony-forming units (CFU) on blood agar. Addition of either antibiotic had no significant effect on the number of CFU/ml. By contrast, RB-aPDT and MB-aPDT effectively inactivated S. aureus, as evidenced by a 6 log10 reduction in bacterial growth. In the presence of MU or LN, the same 6 log10 reduction was observed in response to aPDT, but was achieved using significantly lower concentrations of the photosensitizers RB or MB. In conclusion, the combination of MU or LN and RB/MB-aPDT appears to exert a synergistic bactericidal effect against S. aureus in vitro.

No abstract

Contrary to previously published data, we did not find a relationship between RVS and higher mortality in patients with MSSA bacteraemia and we did not find a link with higher complicated bacteraemia rates.

No abstract