Search

Introduction: In the current study, we evaluated the effectiveness of two well-defined probiotic strains, Lactobacillus paracasei LPc-G110 (CCTCC M 2013691) and Lactobacillus plantarum GOS42 (DSM 32131), during an experimental gingivitis challenge. The primary objective was to evaluate clinically the effectiveness of lozenges containing one of the two oral probiotic strains, compared with placebo lozenges, on the gingival bleeding (bleeding on marginal probing; BOMP change) after a two-week experimental gingivitis period. The secondary objectives were to assess the effects of the test products on gingival health (Modified Gingival Index; MGI), dental plaque accumulation and fluorescence, and the dynamics of immunological and microbiological aspects after the wash-in phase, followed by a two-week period refraining from oral hygiene and a two-week wash-out phase., Methods: This single-center challenge intervention study was a triple-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial with three parallel groups. The full study population consisted of 117 healthy 18-55 years old human volunteers. Subjects were instructed to use one lozenge, 3 times daily after each meal, containing either L. plantarum, L. paracasei , or lozenges without probiotics (placebo group). After a 2-week wash-in period, the subjects were requested to refrain from any form of oral hygiene for 2 weeks., Results: There were no differences in the primary outcome (BOMP change) among the groups. However, gingival health (MGI) in individuals from the groups exposed to the test products recovered better from experimental gingivitis than the individuals in the placebo group ( p = 0.021, one-way ANOVA). The two test products inhibited pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-1ß production, measured in saliva, during the experimental gingivitis period. Both test strains significantly reduced bacterial DNA in tongue samples and L. paracasei strain showed stronger microbiome-modulating potential than the L. plantarum strain., Conclusions: The two tested lozenges with the L. paracasei or L. plantarum strains did show potential for beneficial effects for the oral health of the host during experimental gingivitis to the oral ecosystem., Competing Interests: TR and BF are employed by VivaCell Biotechnology GmbH. TS is employed by Symrise AG. MG is a former employee of Symrise AG and is currently employed by Spindiag GmbH. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. This study received funding from Symrise. The funder (represented by TS and MG) had the following involvement with the study: interpretation of findings and writing of the article. These authors had no involvement in the final evaluation of the data or the discussion of the article., (Copyright © 2022 Volgenant, van der Waal, Brandt, Buijs, van der Veen, Rosema, Fiebich, Rose, Schmitter, Gajfulin, Crielaard and Zaura.)

Background : High-speed dental instruments produce aerosols, which can contribute to the transmission of pathogenic microorganisms. The aim of this study is to describe the microbial load and - composition and spatial distribution of aerosols in dental clinics. Methods : In four dental clinics active and passive sampling methods were used before, during and after treatment and at different locations. Retrieved colony forming units (CFU) were sequenced for taxon identification. Results : The samples contained up to 655 CFU/plate/30 minutes and 418 CFU/m 3 /30 minutes during dental treatment for active and passive sampling, respectively. The level of contamination after treatment and at 1.5 m distance from the patient's head was similar to the start of the day. The highest contamination was found at the patient's chest area. The aerosols consisted of 52 different taxa from human origin and 36 from water. Conclusion : Contamination in dental clinics due to aerosols is mainly low, although high level of contamination with taxa from both human and water origin was found within 80 cm around the head of the patient. Our results stress the importance of infection control measures on surfaces in close proximity to the head of the patient as well as in dental water lines., (© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)