Antibiofilm effect of ozonized physiological saline solution on peri-implant-related biofilm.

BACKGROUND: Removal of dental plaque and local application of local chemical adjuncts, such as chlorhexidine (CHX), have been used to control and treat peri-implant disease. However, these methods can damage the surface properties of the implants or promote bacterial resistance. The application of ozone as an adjunctive treatment represents a new approach in the management of peri-implantitis. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial effect of ozonized physiological saline solution in different concentrations against oral biofilms developed on titanium surface. METHODS: Single and multi-species biofilms of Porphyromonas gingivalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Streptococcus oralis were formed on titanium specimens for 5 days in anaerobic conditions. Biofilms were treated with ozonized saline solution at different concentrations (25, 50, and 80 µg/NmL), for 30 seconds and 1 minute. CHX (0.12%) and saline solution (0.89% NaCl) were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. Bacterial viability was quantified by colony forming units (CFU mL-1 ), and biofilm images were acquired by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Data were analyzed by parametric test (ANOVA) with Tukey post-hoc test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Ozonized saline solution showed antibiofilm activity at a concentration of 80 µg/NmL for 30 seconds and 1 minute, reducing, mainly, Porphyromonas gingivalis viability, with 2.78 and 1.7 log10 CFU mL-1 of reduction in both single and multi-species biofilms, respectively, when compared to the control (saline), whereas CHX reduced 1.4 and 1.2 log10 CFU mL-1 . CONCLUSION: Ozonized saline solution has antibiofilm activity, with better effect when applied for 1 minute at 80 µg/NmL, being a promising candidate therapy for the treatment of peri-implant diseases.

A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no-adhesive control.

Unlike other oral care products, there are limited technologies in the denture adhesive category with the majority based on polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PVM/MA) polymer. Carbomer-based denture adhesives are less well studied, and there are few clinical studies directly comparing performance of denture adhesives based on different technologies. This single-centre, randomised, three-treatment, three-period, examiner-blind, crossover study compared a carbomer-based denture adhesive (Test adhesive) with a PVM/MA-based adhesive (Reference adhesive) and no adhesive using incisal bite force measurements (area over baseline over 12 hr; AOB0-12) in participants with a well-made and at least moderately well-fitting complete maxillary denture. Eligible participants were randomised to a treatment sequence and bit on a force transducer with increasing force until their maxillary denture dislodged. This procedure was performed prior to treatment application (baseline) and at 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hr following application. Forty-four participants were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. AOB0-12 favoured both Test adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.12 lbs; 95% CI [1.25, 3.00]; p < 0.0001) and Reference adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.76 lbs; 95% CI [1.89, 3.63]; p < 0.0001). There was a numerical difference in AOB0-12 for Test versus Reference adhesive (-0.63 lbs; [-1.51, 0.25]); however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.1555). Treatments were generally well tolerated. Both PVM/MA and carbomer-based denture adhesives demonstrated statistically significantly superior denture retention compared with no adhesive over 12 hr, with no statistically significant difference between adhesives.