Effect of various power toothbrushes on interproximal biofilm

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2018.02.004

Abstract

Abstract:

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 (t_{O-R group}= 3.373, P_{O-R group}= 0.005; t_{LFS group}= 3.215, P_{LFS 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 (t_{O-R group}= 2.852, P_{O-R group}= 0.014; t_{LFS group}= 2.470, P_{LFS 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.

Key words: Toothbrushing, In vitro, Dental models, Biofilms, interproximal, Non-contact removal

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

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2018.02.004

https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2018/V12/I02/89

Figures/Tables 7

References 24

[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.

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export