A single M-EO is an effective measure against the de novo biofilm, presenting a good alternative to clorhexidine such as a preoperative rinse, in periodontal procedures or post-treatment applications.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the in situ antibacterial activity of a mouthrinse with 0.2% Chlorhexidine (M-0.2% CHX) on undisturbed de novo plaque-like biofilm (PL-biofilm) and on salivary flora up to 7 hours after its application.MethodsA special acrylic appliance was designed, with 3 inserted glass disks on each buccal side, allowing for PL-biofilm growth. Fifteen healthy volunteers wore the appliance for 48 hours and then performed an M-0.2% CHX; disks were removed at 30 seconds and 1, 3, 5 and 7 hours after the mouth-rinsing. Applying a washout period, saliva samples were collected from each volunteer at 30 seconds and 1, 3, 5 and 7 hours after performing an M-0.2% CHX. The PL-biofilm and saliva samples were analysed by confocal laser scanning and epifluorescence microscopes, respectively.ResultsAt 30 seconds after M-0.2% CHX, the levels of viable bacteria detected in saliva were significantly lower than those observed in PL-biofilm. The difference in the percentage of live bacteria detected in saliva was significantly higher than that observed in PL-biofilm at 5 and 7 hours after M-0.2% CHX.ConclusionAfter a single mouthrinse of the 0.2% CHX formulation tested in the present study, the 2-day PL-biofilm presented a significantly higher resistance to this antiseptic in situ than that observed in salivary flora. However, this 0.2% CHX formulation showed a higher substantivity on PL-biofilm than on salivary flora at 5 and 7 hours after mouth-rinsing, which could be related to the slower growth rate of PL-biofilm and the possible reservoir function for antimicrobial agents associated with the undisturbed de novo PL-biofilm.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the in situ antiplaque effect after 4 days of using of 2 commercial antimicrobial agents in short term on undisturbed plaque-like biofilm.Trial Design and ParticipantsAn observer-masked, crossover randomised clinical trial on 15 oral and systemically healthy volunteers between 20–30 years who were randomly and sequentially allocated in the same group which performed 3 interventions in different randomised sequences.InterventionThe participants wore an appliance in 3 different rinsing periods doing mouthwashes twice a day (1/0/1) with essential oils, 0.2% chlorhexidine or sterile water (negative control). At the end of each 4-day mouthwash period, samples were removed from the appliance. Posteriorly, after bacterial vital staining, samples were analysed using a Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope.Main Outcome MeasuresBacterial vitality, thickness and covering grade by the biofilm after 4 days of applying each of the mouthwashes.ResultsThe essential oils and the 0.2% chlorhexidine were significantly more effective than the sterile water at reducing bacterial vitality, thickness and covering grade by the biofilm. No significant differences were found between the 0.2% chlorhexidine and the essential oils at reducing the bacterial vitality (13.2% vs. 14.7%). However, the 0.2% chlorhexidine showed more reduction than the essential oils in thickness (6.5 μm vs. 10.0 μm; p<0.05) and covering grade by the biofilm (20.0% vs. 54.3%; p<0.001).ConclusionThe essential oils and 0.2% chlorhexidine showed a high antiplaque effect. Although the 0.2% chlorhexidine showed better results with regard to reducing the thickness and covering grade by the biofilm, both antiseptics showed a high and similar antibacterial activity.Clinical RelevanceDaily essential oils or 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwashes are effective when reducing dental plaque formation in the short term. Although 0.2% chlorhexidine continues to be the “gold standard” in terms of antiplaque effect, essential oils could be considered a reliable alternative.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02124655

ObjectivesTo investigate the development of post-extraction bacteraemia (PEB) after the prophylactic use of chlorhexidine (CHX).Patients and MethodsA total of 201 patients who underwent a tooth extraction were randomly distributed into four groups: 52 received no prophylaxis (CONTROL), 50 did a mouthwash with 0.2% CHX before the tooth extraction (CHX-MW), 51 did a mouthwash with 0.2% CHX and a subgingival irrigation with 1% CHX (CHX-MW/SUB_IR) and 48 did a mouthwash with 0.2% CHX and a continuous supragingival irrigation with 1% CHX (CHX-MW/SUPRA_IR). Peripheral venous blood samples were collected at baseline, 30 seconds after performing the mouthwash and the subgingival or supragingival irrigation, and at 30 seconds and 15 minutes after completion of the tooth extraction. Blood samples were analysed applying conventional microbiological cultures under aerobic and anaerobic conditions performing bacterial identification of the isolates.ResultsThe prevalences of PEB in the CONTROL, CHX-MW, CHX-MW/SUB_IR and CHX-MWSUPRA_IR groups were 52%, 50%, 55% and 50%, respectively, at 30 seconds and 23%, 4%, 10% and 27%, respectively, at 15 minutes. The prevalence of PEB at 15 minutes was significantly higher in the CONTROL group than in the CHX-MW group (23% versus 4%; p = 0.005). At the same time, no differences were found between CONTROL group and CHX-MW/SUB_IR or CHX-MW/SUPRA_IR groups. Streptococci (mostly viridans group streptococci) were the most frequently identified bacteria (69–79%).ConclusionsPerforming a 0.2% CHX mouthwash significantly reduces the duration of PEB. Subgingival irrigation with 1% CHX didn’t increase the efficacy of the mouthwash while supragingival irrigation even decreased this efficacy, probably due to the influence of these maneuvers on the onset of bacteraemia.Clinical RelevanceThese results confirm the suitability of performing a mouthwash with 0.2% CHX before tooth extractions in order to reduce the duration of PEB. This practice should perhaps be extended to all dental manipulations.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02150031

Currently, there is little evidence on the in situ antibacterial activity of essential oils (EO) without alcohol. This study aimed to evaluate in situ the substantivity and antiplaque effect on the plaque-like biofilm (PL-biofilm) of two solutions, a traditional formulation that contains EO with alcohol (T-EO) and an alcohol-free formulation of EO (Af-EO). Eighteen healthy adults performed a single mouthwash of: T-EO, Af-EO, and sterile water (WATER) after wearing an individualized disk-holding splint for 2 days. The bacterial viability (BV) and thickness of the PL-biofilm were quantified at baseline, 30 s, and 1, 3, 5, and 7 h post-rinsing (Test 1). Subsequently, each volunteer wore the splint for 4 days, applying two daily mouthwashes of: T-EO, Af-EO, and WATER. The BV, thickness, and covering grade (CG) of the PL-biofilm were quantified (Test 2). Samples were analyzed by confocal laser scanning microscopy after staining with the LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™ solution. To conduct the computations of the BV automatically, a Matlab toolbox called Dentius Biofilm was developed. In test 1, both EO antiseptics had a similar antibacterial effect, reducing BV after a single rinse compared to the WATER, and keeping it below baseline levels up to 7 h post-rinse (P < 0.001). The mean thickness of the PL-biofilm after rinsing was not affected by any of the EO formulations and ranged from 18.58 to 20.19 μm. After 4 days, the T-EO and Af-EO solutions were significantly more effective than the WATER, reducing the BV, thickness, and CG of the PL-biofilm (P < 0.001). Although, both EO antiseptics presented a similar bactericidal activity, the Af-EO rinses led to more significant reductions in the thickness and CG of the PL-biofilm than the T-EO rinses (thickness = 7.90 vs. 9.92 μm, P = 0.012; CG = 33.36 vs. 46.61%, P = 0.001). In conclusion, both essential oils antiseptics had very high immediate antibacterial activity and substantivity in situ on the 2-day PL-biofilm after a single mouthwash. In the 4-day PL-biofilm, both essential oils formulations demonstrated a very good antiplaque effect in situ, although the alcohol-free formula performed better at reducing the biofilm thickness and covering grade.