Suzana Jakovljević

Antimicrobial efficacy of photodynamic therapy, Nd:YAG laser and QMiX solution against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm

BACKGROUND Lasers have been recommended in final root canal disinfection protocol, however, there is no clear evidence about their efficacy against bacteria in biofilms. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the disinfection effect of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), Nd:YAG laser and QMiX solution against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. METHODS The study sample consisted of 65 dentine slices, which were inoculated with E. faecalis and incubated anaerobically for three weeks. The dentine discs were randomly allocated to one of the following experimental groups: aPDT (100 mW, 10 mg/ml phenothiazinium chloride, 1 min), Nd:YAG laser (2 W, 15 Hz, 4×5 s), QMiX solution (1 min). Positive controls did not receive any treatment and negative controls were treated with 5.25% NaOCl. To harvest surviving adherent cells, each dentine sample was transffered to a test tube containing of TSB, serial ten-fold dilutions were made and aliquot of 1 ml was plated onto blood agar plates and incubated for 48 h. Colony forming units grown were counted and transformed into actual counts based on the dilution factor. The remaining viable cells after each protocol were analysed by FISH. RESULTS The aPDT and the QMiX solution were equally effective, with the reduction rate of E. faecalis CFUs of 98.8% and 99.3% respectively (p=1.107). The Nd:YAG laser caused 96% reduction of E. faecalis (P<0.001). CONCLUSION The aPDT and the QMiX solution showed similar antibacterial efficacy against old E. faecalis biofilm, followed by Nd:YAG irradiation.

Coating Distribution Depending on Surface Microgeometry

Abstract This paper investigates the effects of surface microgeometry on coating thickness, both theoretically and experimentally. In the theoretical part of the paper, surface roughness parameters are analyzed and basic definitions and general requirements on coating quality defined. The experimental part of the paper gives a calculation for the coating quantity required in order to fill “dead volume” depending on surface roughness. Coating distribution is analyzed using scanning electronic microscopy (SEM). The paper also evaluates quality of a measuring system using magnetic method for measuring coating thickness.

Antimicrobial efficacy of photodynamic therapy and light-activated disinfection on contaminated zirconia implants: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND We aimed to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) and light-activated disinfection (LAD) on zirconia dental implants contaminated with three bacterial species and investigate if the PDT and LAD cause implant surface alterations. METHODS Seventy-two zirconia dental implants were contaminated with a bacterial suspension of Prevotella intermedia, Actinomyces actinomycetemcomitans, and Porphyromonas gingivalis. The implants were subsequently randomly divided into four groups (n = 12 dental implants/each) according to the decontamination protocol: Group 1 (PDT1) - PDT (660 nm, 100 mW) with toluidine blue; Group 2 (PDT2) - PDT (660 nm, 100 mW) with phenothiazine chloride dye; Group 3 (LAD) - light emitting diode (LED) with toluidine blue; and Group 4 (TB) - toluidine blue without the application of light. Implants in the positive control (PC) group were treated with a 0.2% chlorhexidine-based solution, and implants assigned to the negative control (NC) group did not undergo any treatment. Each implant was then placed in tubes containing phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and vortexed for 60 s to remove the remaining bacteria from the implant surface. After 10-fold serial dilutions, 30 μl of the suspension was plated on Brucella agar plates. After 72 h, the colony forming units (CFU) were counted. Distinctive colonies were confirmed with MALDI Biotyper. The implants were analyzed using scanning electron microscope (SEM) to evaluate the possible surface alterations due to PDT or LAD. RESULTS All study groups had significant reductions in the number of CFUs compared with the NC (p < 0.05). PDT1, the PDT2, and the LAD groups had the largest bacterial reduction with respect to each bacterial species separately and the total bacterial count, and they were more efficient compared with the TB group (p < 0.05). SEM analysis did not reveal any alterations of the implant surface after the treatment procedures. CONCLUSION Both PDT protocols and LAD showed high and equal effectiveness in decontamination of zirconia dental implants.

Antimicrobial Efficacy of Photodynamic Therapy and Light-Activated Disinfection Against Bacterial Species on Titanium Dental Implants

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) and light-activated disinfection (LAD) against a 3-day-old bacterial suspension prepared from three different bacterial species present on titanium dental implants, and to analyze the possible alterations of the implant surfaces as a result of the PDT and LAD. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was conducted on 72 titanium dental implants contaminated with a bacterial suspension prepared from three bacterial species: Prevotella intermedia, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, and Porphyromonas gingivalis. The contaminated implants were incubated under anaerobic conditions for 72 hours and then were randomly divided into four experimental groups and two control groups (n = 12 each), according to the following treatment protocols: group 1 (PDT1): PDT (660 nm, 100 mW, 60 seconds) with toluidine blue; group 2 (PDT2): PDT (660 nm, 100 mW, 60 seconds) with phenothiazine chloride dye; group 3 (LAD): light-emitting diode (LED) with toluidine blue; group 4 (toluidine blue): treatment with only toluidine blue for 60 seconds. In the positive control group, the implants were treated with a 0.2% chlorhexidine-based solution for 60 seconds, and in the negative control group, no treatment was used. RESULTS The highest bacterial reduction was recorded in the PDT1 (98.3%) and PDT2 (97.8%) groups. The results of this study showed that there was a statistically significant reduction of bacteria in the PDT1 and PDT2 groups compared with the negative control group (P < .05), individually for each bacterial species as well as for all three species together. LAD was less effective than PDT1 and PDT2, and did not show a statistically significant difference compared with the negative control or any other treatment group. Toluidine blue was the least effective treatment in terms of both the total bacterial count and the individual count for each bacterial species. CONCLUSION Both PDT1 and PDT2 protocols showed a high efficacy against a 3-day-old bacterial biofilm on dental implants and were more effective compared with LAD.