Matar, M. A.;
Darwish, S. S.;
Salma, R. S.;
Lotfy, W. A.
Evaluation of the antibacterial activity of Enamelast® and Fluor defender® fluoride varnishes against Streptococcus mutans biofilm: an in vitro study in primary teeth
You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
Media type:
E-Article
Title:
Evaluation of the antibacterial activity of Enamelast® and Fluor defender® fluoride varnishes against Streptococcus mutans biofilm: an in vitro study in primary teeth
Contributor:
Matar, M. A.;
Darwish, S. S.;
Salma, R. S.;
Lotfy, W. A.
Published:
Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2023
Published in:
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, 24 (2023) 5, Seite 549-558
Description:
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Purpose</jats:title>
<jats:p>The aim of the current work was to compare the antibacterial activity of Enamelast® and Fluor defender® fluoride varnish on biofilm generation by <jats:italic>Streptococcus mutans</jats:italic> on extracted primary teeth.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>Thirty-six primary molars were collected and sliced into seventy-two test model disks. All specimens were examined, and the cracked or broken ones were discarded. A total number of specimens (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 54) were divided into two experimental analyses viz; biofilm formation (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 27) and microscopic examination (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 27). Specimens of each analysis were tested under different experimental conditions: a negative control group (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 9), Fluor defender group (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 9), and Enamelast group (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 9). Following treatment, biofilms were generated by adherent <jats:italic>Streptococcus mutans</jats:italic> on the test model disks on three time intervals: 24 h (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 3), 48 h (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 3), and 72 h (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 3) for each analysis. Then, for biofilm formation analysis, the biofilm was detected spectrophotometrically at 620 nm after being stained by crystal violet. For microscopical analysis, the surfaces of the test model disks were visualized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and each image was processed and analyzed using ImageJ software.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>At 48 and 72 h, Enamelast® and Fluor defender®-treated group showed significantly (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.001) slight adhered bacterial cells when compared with the negative control group as revealed by the absorbance and SEM. Compared with the Fluor defender®-treated group, the absorbance of the Enamelast®-treated group showed a significant (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.001) increase by approximately 7- and 16.5-fold at 48 and 72 h, respectively. Similarly, SEM showed that the number of bacterial cells adhered to enamel surfaces in the Fluor defender®-treated group was significantly (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.001) fewer than the Enamelast®-treated group by approximately 36.55% and 20.62% at 48 and 72 h after exposure, respectively.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title>
<jats:p>We conclude that the anti-biofilm activity of Fluor defender® against <jats:italic>Streptococcus mutans</jats:italic> was significantly (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.001) greater than Enamelast® fluoride varnish. The use of Fluor defender® is encouraged as a preventive measure in children with the high risk of developing dental caries.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>