Comparison of periodontitis-associated oral biofilm formation under dynamic and static conditions.
10.5051/jpis.2017.47.4.219
- Author:
Won Sub SONG
1
;
Jae Kwan LEE
;
Se Hwan PARK
;
Heung Sik UM
;
Si Young LEE
;
Beom Seok CHANG
Author Information
1. Department of Periodontology and Research Institute of Oral Sciences, Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry, Gangneung, Korea. dentist@gwnu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Bacterial adhesion;
Biofilms;
Chlorhexidine;
Electron microscope tomography;
Periodontitis
- MeSH:
Bacteria;
Bacterial Adhesion;
Biofilms*;
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.);
Chlorhexidine;
Durapatite;
Electron Microscope Tomography;
Fusobacterium nucleatum;
In Vitro Techniques;
Methods;
Microscopy, Confocal;
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning;
Periodontitis;
Porphyromonas gingivalis;
Saliva
- From:Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science
2017;47(4):219-230
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the characteristics of single- and dual-species in vitro oral biofilms made by static and dynamic methods. METHODS: Hydroxyapatite (HA) disks, 12.7 mm in diameter and 3 mm thick, were coated with processed saliva for 4 hours. The disks were divided into a static method group and a dynamic method group. The disks treated with a static method were cultured in 12-well plates, and the disks in the dynamic method group were cultured in a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) biofilm reactor for 72 hours. In the single- and dual-species biofilms, Fusobacterium nucleatum and Porphyromonas gingivalis were used, and the amount of adhering bacteria, proportions of species, and bacterial reduction of chlorhexidine were examined. Bacterial adhesion was examined with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). RESULTS: Compared with the biofilms made using the static method, the biofilms made using the dynamic method had significantly lower amounts of adhering and looser bacterial accumulation in SEM and CLSM images. The proportion of P. gingivalis was higher in the dynamic method group than in the static method group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Furthermore, the biofilm thickness and bacterial reduction by chlorhexidine showed no significant differences between the 2 methods. CONCLUSIONS: When used to reproduce periodontal biofilms composed of F. nucleatum and P. gingivalis, the dynamic method (CDC biofilm reactor) formed looser biofilms containing fewer bacteria than the well plate. However, this difference did not influence the thickness of the biofilms or the activity of chlorhexidine. Therefore, both methods are useful for mimicking periodontitis-associated oral biofilms.
