TY - JOUR
T1 - Antibacterial Efficacy against Streptococcus mutans of Different Desensitizing Dentifrices
T2 - A Comparison In vitro Study
AU - Romo, Mariela
AU - Mendoza, Roman
AU - Mauricio, Franco
AU - Chiong, Lucy
AU - Munive-Degregori, Arnaldo
AU - Barja-Ore, John
AU - Mayta-Tovalino, Frank
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s). 2022 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
PY - 2022/7
Y1 - 2022/7
N2 - Aim: To evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of desensitizing dentifrices. Material and methods: An experimental, in vitro, longitudinal, analytical, and prospective study was carried out. Subsequently, the following groups were formed: Streptococcus mutans vs Vitis® Sensible. S. mutans vs Sensodyne® Repair and Protect. Also, S. mutans vs Colgate® Sensitive Pro-ReliefTM and S. mutans vs Colgate Total 12® at 100, 50, 25, and 12.5%. Each Petri dish was properly labeled with the letter corresponding to the toothpaste and was placed in the incubator for 24 hours at 37°C. A 0.12% chlorhexidine solution was used as a positive control and distilled water as a negative control. The manuscript was written following the checklist for reporting in vitro studies (CRIS) guidelines. Results: It was found that when comparing the inhibition halos of the desensitizing toothpaste against S. mutans, Colgate® Sensitive Pro-ReliefTM 100% paste had the highest efficacy at 24 and 48 hours with an average of 25.2 ± 1.0 and 23.5 ± 1.1 mm, respectively. On the other way, Sensodyne paste had no efficacy at any of its concentrations 100, 50, 25, and 12.5%. Finally, it was found that there were statistically significant differences between each of the groups evaluated with a p < 0.001. Conclusions: It was concluded that mainly the 100% pure concentrations of the desensitizing pastes had antibacterial efficacy against S. mutans. However, Sensodyne® Repair and Protect paste had no effect. Clinical significance: This research has clinical relevance because the use of desensitizing pastes is highly frequent. Therefore, it is necessary to know if these pastes offer an efficient antibacterial effect to control the main microorganisms of the oral cavity.
AB - Aim: To evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of desensitizing dentifrices. Material and methods: An experimental, in vitro, longitudinal, analytical, and prospective study was carried out. Subsequently, the following groups were formed: Streptococcus mutans vs Vitis® Sensible. S. mutans vs Sensodyne® Repair and Protect. Also, S. mutans vs Colgate® Sensitive Pro-ReliefTM and S. mutans vs Colgate Total 12® at 100, 50, 25, and 12.5%. Each Petri dish was properly labeled with the letter corresponding to the toothpaste and was placed in the incubator for 24 hours at 37°C. A 0.12% chlorhexidine solution was used as a positive control and distilled water as a negative control. The manuscript was written following the checklist for reporting in vitro studies (CRIS) guidelines. Results: It was found that when comparing the inhibition halos of the desensitizing toothpaste against S. mutans, Colgate® Sensitive Pro-ReliefTM 100% paste had the highest efficacy at 24 and 48 hours with an average of 25.2 ± 1.0 and 23.5 ± 1.1 mm, respectively. On the other way, Sensodyne paste had no efficacy at any of its concentrations 100, 50, 25, and 12.5%. Finally, it was found that there were statistically significant differences between each of the groups evaluated with a p < 0.001. Conclusions: It was concluded that mainly the 100% pure concentrations of the desensitizing pastes had antibacterial efficacy against S. mutans. However, Sensodyne® Repair and Protect paste had no effect. Clinical significance: This research has clinical relevance because the use of desensitizing pastes is highly frequent. Therefore, it is necessary to know if these pastes offer an efficient antibacterial effect to control the main microorganisms of the oral cavity.
KW - Antibacterial efficacy
KW - Desensitizing dentifrices
KW - In vitro study
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85142829317&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3375
DO - 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3375
M3 - Article
C2 - 36440511
AN - SCOPUS:85142829317
SN - 1526-3711
VL - 23
SP - 669
EP - 673
JO - Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
JF - Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
IS - 7
ER -