切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版) ›› 2018, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (02) : 89 -95. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2018.02.004

所属专题: 文献

基础研究

不同电动牙刷对邻面菌斑生物膜的影响
吕晶1, 王肖1, 凌均棨1,()   
  1. 1. 510055 广州,中山大学光华口腔医学院·附属口腔医院,广东省口腔医学重点实验室
  • 收稿日期:2017-12-22 出版日期:2018-04-01
  • 通信作者: 凌均棨
  • 基金资助:
    中山大学附属口腔医院横向科研项目(001050)

Effect of various power toothbrushes on interproximal biofilm

Jing Lyu1, Xiao Wang1, Junqi Ling1,()   

  1. 1. Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Guangzhou 510055, China
  • Received:2017-12-22 Published:2018-04-01
  • Corresponding author: Junqi Ling
  • About author:
    Corresponding author:Ling Junqi,Email:
引用本文:

吕晶, 王肖, 凌均棨. 不同电动牙刷对邻面菌斑生物膜的影响[J/OL]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(02): 89-95.

Jing Lyu, Xiao Wang, Junqi Ling. Effect of various power toothbrushes on interproximal biofilm[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition), 2018, 12(02): 89-95.

目的

研究体外模型中不同运动模式和不同频率的电动牙刷对邻面菌斑生物膜的影响。

方法

培养变异链球菌(S.mutans)、血链球菌(S.sanguis)和内氏放线菌(A.naeslundii)形成三菌种生物膜。实验分为4组,其中3组分别用高频率声波型电动牙刷、振动旋转型电动牙刷和低频率声波型电动牙刷在体外模型中对邻面生物膜进行非接触去除,另1组为对照组,不处理。结晶紫吸附实验半定量计算各组邻面生物膜去除量,激光共聚焦扫描显微镜观察菌斑生物膜,Comstat 2.1软件测量生物膜的总生物量、平均厚度、平均扩散距离。单因素方差分析及LSD-t检验对数据统计分析。

结果

结晶紫吸附实验结果显示,高频率声波型组的生物膜去除量(0.40 ± 0.08)大于振动旋转型组的生物膜去除量(0.24 ± 0.09),差异有统计学意义(t= 4.289,P<0.001),同时也大于低频率声波型组的生物膜去除量(0.24 ± 0.05),差异有统计学意义(t= 4.407,P<0.001)。高频率声波型电动牙刷组的生物膜总生物量[(7.54 ± 1.35)μm3/μm2]小于振动旋转型电动牙刷组[(11.86 ± 1.56)μm3/μm2]和低频率声波型电动牙刷组[(11.84 ± 1.42)μm3/μm2],差异有统计学意义(t振动旋转型组=3.373,P振动旋转型组=0.005;t低频率声波型组= 3.215,P低频率声波型组= 0.007)。高频率声波型电动牙刷组的生物膜平均扩散距离[(0.23 ± 0.02)μm]小于振动旋转型电动牙刷组[(0.76 ± 0.10)μm]和低频率声波型电动牙刷组[(0.71 ± 0.13)μm],差异有统计学意义(t振动旋转型组=2.852,P振动旋转型组= 0.014;t低频率声波型组=2.470,P低频率声波型组= 0.028)。

结论

在体外模型中,相比振动旋转型电动牙刷和低频率声波型电动牙刷,高频率声波型电动牙刷可更高效去除邻面菌斑生物膜,降低生物膜密度。

Objective

To investigate the effect of various power toothbrushes with different action mode and frequency on interproximal biofilm in an in vitro model.

Methods

Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguis and Actinomyces naeslundii were cultivated to form a three-species biofilm. The tests were divided into four groups, all of which were conducted with non-contact removal by high frequency sonic (HFS) power toothbrush, oscillating-rotating (O-R) power toothbrush and low frequency sonic (LFS) power toothbrush groups and a control group without any treatment in an in vitro model respectively. Interproximal biofilm removal was semi-quantitative calculated by crystal violet staining method. Interproximal biofilm was observed by confocal laser scanning microscope. Biomass, average thickness and average diffusion distance (ADD) were measured by Comstat 2.1 software. Data were analyzed by One-Way ANOVA and LSD-t test.

Results

The result of crystal violet staining method showed that, the biofilm removal of HFS group (0.40 ± 0.08) was greater than the biofilm removal of O-R group (0.24 ± 0.09) , and the difference was statistically significant (t= 4.289, P<0.001) . Moreover, the HFS group also had a greater biofilm removal efficiency than that of LFS group (0.24 ± 0.05) with statistically significant difference (t= 4.407, P<0.001) . Confocal laser scanning microscopy 3D reconstruction images were analyzed by Comstat 2.1 software. Results indicated that the biomass of HFS group (7.54 ± 1.35) μm3/μm2 was less than O-R group (11.86 ± 1.56) μm3/μm2 and LFS group (11.84 ± 1.42) μm3/μm2, and the differences were statistically significant (tO-R group= 3.373, PO-R group= 0.005; tLFS group= 3.215, PLFS group= 0.007) . The ADD of HFS group (0.23 ± 0.02) μm was less than O-R group (0.76 ± 0.10) μm and LFS group (0.71 ± 0.13) μm with statistically significant differences (tO-R group= 2.852, PO-R group= 0.014; tLFS group= 2.470, PLFS group= 0.028) .

Conclusions

In an in vitro model, compared with oscillating-rotating toothbrush and low frequency sonic toothbrush, high frequency sonic power toothbrush could be more effective in removing interproximal biofilm and decreasing biofilm density.

图1 实验用电动牙刷(从左到右:Gevilan、Oral-B、Sonicare)
图2 邻面模型中电动牙刷和生物膜的位置关系模拟图
图3 结晶紫染色法比较各处理组生物膜去除量(aP<0.001)
图4 生物膜激光共聚焦三维重建图(荧光染色中倍放大)
图5 生物膜总生物量Comstat分析结果(aP<0.001,bP<0.05)
图6 生物膜平均厚度Comstat分析结果(aP<0.05)
图7 生物膜平均扩散距离Comstat分析结果(aP<0.05,bP<0.01)
[1]
Axelsson P,Nyström B,Lindhe J. The long-term effect of a plaque control program on tooth mortality,caries and periodontal disease in adults. Results after 30 years of maintenance[J]. J Clin Periodontol,2004,31(9):749-757.
[2]
Ak G,Sepet E,Pinar A,et al. Reasons for early loss of primary molars[J]. Oral Health Prev Dent,2005,3(2):113-117.
[3]
Matuliene G,Studer R,Lang NP,et al. Significance of Periodontal Risk Assessment in the recurrence of periodontitis and tooth loss[J]. J Clin Periodontol,2010,37(2):191-199.
[4]
Shields RC,Burne RA. Growth of Streptococcus mutans in Biofilms Alters Peptide Signaling at the Sub-population Level[J]. Front Microbiol,2016(7):1075.
[5]
Guo L,McLean JS,Lux R,et al. The well-coordinated linkage between acidogenicity and aciduricity via insoluble glucans on the surface of Streptococcus mutans[J]. Sci Rep,2015(5):18015.
[6]
Kolenbrander PE,Andersen RN,Blehert DS,et al. Communication among oral bacteria[J]. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev,2002,66(3):486-505.
[7]
Sharma PK,Gibcus MJ,van der Mei HC,et al. Influence of fluid shear and microbubbles on bacterial detachment from a surface[J]. Appl Environ Microbiol,2005,71(7):3668-3673.
[8]
Schmidt JC,Astasov-Frauenhoffer M,Hauser-Gerspach I,et al. Efficacy of various side-to-side toothbrushes for noncontact biofilm removal[J]. Clin Oral Investig,2014,18(3):793-800.
[9]
Schmidt JC,Zaugg C,Weiger R,et al. Brushing without brushing?--a review of the efficacy of powered toothbrushes in noncontact biofilm removal[J]. Clin Oral Investig,2013,17(3):687-709.
[10]
Schmidt JC,Astasov-Frauenhoffer M,Waltimo T,et al. Efficacy of various side-to-side toothbrushes and impact of brushing parameters on noncontact biofilm removal in an interdental space model[J]. Clin Oral Investig,2017,21(5):1565-1577.
[11]
Singleton S,Treloar R,Warren P,et al. Methods for microscopic characterization of oral biofilms:analysis of colonization,microstructure,and molecular transport phenomena[J]. Adv Dent Res,1997,11(1):133-149.
[12]
Parini MR,Eggett DL,Pitt WG. Removal of Streptococcus mutans biofilm by bubbles[J]. J Clin Periodontol,2005,32(11):1151-1156.
[13]
Busscher HJ,Jager D,Finger G,et al. Energy transfer,volumetric expansion,and removal of oral biofilms by non-contact brushing [J]. Eur J Oral Sci,2010,118(2):177-182.
[14]
Roberts FA,Hacker BM,Oswald TK,et al. Evaluation of the use of ultrasound within a power toothbrush to dislodge oral bacteria using an in vitro Streptococcus mutans biofilm model [J]. Am J Dent,2010,23(2):65-69.
[15]
Tawakoli PN,Sauer B,Becker K,et al. Interproximal biofilm removal by intervallic use of a sonic toothbrush compared to an oral irrigation system[J]. BMC Oral Health,2015(15):91.
[16]
van der Mei HC,Rustema-Abbing M,Bruinsma GM,et al.Sequence of oral bacterial co-adhesion and non-contact brushing [J]. J Dent Res,2007,86(5):421-425.
[17]
He Y,Peterson BW,Ren Y,et al. Antimicrobial penetration in a dual-species oral biofilm after noncontact brushing:an in vitro study[J]. Clin Oral Investig,2014,18(4):1103-1109.
[18]
Hope CK,Petrie A,Wilson M. Efficacy of removal of sucrose-supplemented interproximal plaque by electric toothbrushes in an in vitro model[J]. Appl Environ Microbiol,2005,71(2):1114-1116.
[19]
Brambilla E,Cagetti MG,Belluomo G,et al. Effects of sonic energy on monospecific biofilms of cariogenic microorganisms [J]. Am J Dent,2006,19(1):3-6.
[20]
Paramonova E,Kalmykowa OJ,van der Mei HC,et al. Impact of hydrodynamics on oral biofilm strength[J]. J Dent Res,2009,88(10):922-926.
[21]
Verkaik MJ,Busscher HJ,Rustema-Abbing M,et al. Oral biofilm models for mechanical plaque removal[J]. Clin Oral Investig,2010,14(4):403-409.
[22]
Krzyściak W,Jurczak A,Kościelniak D,et al. The virulence of Streptococcus mutans and the ability to form biofilms[J]. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis,2014,33(4):499-515.
[23]
Adams H,Winston MT,Heersink J,et al. Development of a laboratory model to assess the removal of biofilm from interproximal spaces by powered tooth brushing[J]. Am J Dent,2002(15):12B-17B.
[24]
Hope CK,Petrie A,Wilson M. In vitro assessment of the plaque-removing ability of hydrodynamic shear forces produced beyond the bristles by 2 electric toothbrushes[J]. J Periodontol,2003,74(7):1017-1022.
[1] 张秋阳, 余韶芸, 潘向滢, 金家佳, 夏桦, 赵雪红. 成年体外膜肺氧合患者出血影响因素的Meta 分析[J/OL]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 392-398.
[2] 钟雅雯, 王煜, 王海臻, 黄莉萍. 肌苷通过抑制线粒体通透性转换孔开放缓解缺氧/复氧诱导的人绒毛膜滋养层细胞凋亡[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(05): 525-533.
[3] 高青卓, 康宜凡, 王治鸿. 体外受精周期中单原核胚胎的临床研究现状[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(03): 260-265.
[4] 李欣, 魏艺, 张娟, 张娟娟, 凌秀凤, 赵纯, 张媔秋. 高龄女性冻胚移植周期临床妊娠结局的影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(03): 276-283.
[5] 霍枫, 李智霞, 季茹, 谭晓宇, 范晓礼, 叶啟发. 以循环标准判定死亡的遗体器官捐献分类标准、实施流程及需要注意的问题[J/OL]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 213-221.
[6] 李鑫, 邓相奎, 林昌永, 郭勇. 心脏起搏器/心律转复除颤器与体外冲击波碎石相关指南文献解读[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 313-317.
[7] 魏丁, 乔艳艳, 顾兴, 张燕, 李艳燕, 钱卫生, 潘蕾, 高永恒, 金发光. 体外膜肺氧合救治急性呼吸窘迫综合征不良预后危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(03): 363-367.
[8] 王晓霞, 乌丹, 张江英, 乌雅罕, 郝颖楠, 斯日古楞. 《2023 年美国胸科学会关于成人急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者管理的临床实践指南更新》解读[J/OL]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2024, 10(04): 338-343.
[9] 许浩, 罗亮. 体外膜肺氧合支持期间新发感染的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 292-297.
[10] 周帅, 张庆海, 王新, 马晓艳, 孙建霞, 王海波, 张继红. 静脉-动脉体外膜肺氧合辅助下溶栓治疗急性高危肺栓塞一例[J/OL]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 298-302.
[11] 汪文雁, 郑剑兰, 朱丽慈. 体外受精-胚胎移植术后妊娠患者孕产期风险的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2024, 13(04): 220-226.
[12] 洪凡, 陈敦金, 傅洋, 梁新月, 吴毅, 王晓怡. 体外受精-胚胎移植妊娠合并前置胎盘临床研究[J/OL]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2024, 13(03): 176-182.
[13] 王文珠, 刘建, 袁常秀, 石亚飞, 尤培军. 竖脊肌平面阻滞对非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术中阿片类药物用量的影响[J/OL]. 中华诊断学电子杂志, 2024, 12(03): 155-159.
[14] 詹维强, 李梦蝶, 涂玉玲, 郭艳, 芦乙滨, 史新格, 许明. 早期CRRT联合VA-ECMO治疗难治性心源性休克的临床效果[J/OL]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 260-268.
[15] 曹慧, 刘华, 赵婷奕, 唐茂庆, 韩骐, 于永华. 非酮症高血糖性偏身舞蹈症一例报道及文献回顾[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 501-505.
阅读次数
全文


摘要