| Literature DB >> 30161256 |
Jacqueline de Oliveira Zoccolotti1, Camilla Olga Tasso1, Maria Isabel Amaya Arbeláez1, Isadora Ferreira Malavolta1, Eduarda Carolina da Silva Pereira1, Caroline Stefanie Gomes Esteves1, Janaina Habib Jorge1.
Abstract
Denture stomatitis triggered by Candida species requires better preventive measures. This study evaluated the physical and biological properties of a denture base acrylic resin after immersion in antiseptic soaps. Acrylic resin specimens were prepared and stored in distinct solutions for 0, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. The solutions were as follows: DW: distilled water at 37°C (control group); DS: cycles of daily immersion in Dettol soap for 8 hours at room temperature, followed by immersion in distilled water for 16 hours at 37°C; PS: cycles of daily immersion in Protex soap, as described for the previous group; LS: cycles of daily immersion in Lifebuoy soap, as described for the DS group. The parameters evaluated at each time point were the following: biofilm formation capacity by Candida albicans and reduction of preformed fungal biofilms, cytotoxicity, surface roughness, hardness, and color change. For the fungal adhesion phase, the type of soap had a statistically significant effect (p = 0.0292), but after 24 hours, no differences were found between solutions or between storage times. Regarding the efficacy of biofilm reduction, there was a significant difference when the groups were compared to each other (p = 0.014). Dettol and Lifebuoy eliminated the preformed biofilm on the specimens. Moreover, all the soaps were classified as non-cytotoxic (on HaCaT cell line) because there was no difference in cell viability between the different groups, except after 21 days, when a decrease in cell viability occurred, regardless of the type of soap. Regarding the roughness, there was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between the groups. Lifebuoy decreased resin hardness regardless of storage time (p = 0.003). After 21 and 28 days of storage, there was an increase in hardness value, regardless of the type of soap. The specimens' color, according to the National Bureau of Standards values, ranged from 0.27 to 0.58 (i.e., imperceptible or mild color changes). In general, the disinfectant soaps were not able to prevent biofilm formation, but all the soaps were effective in reducing the preformed biofilm. In addition, all soaps were non-cytotoxic and did not change surface roughness, hardness (except Lifebuoy), and color (except Lifebuoy). Therefore, immersion in two antiseptic soaps (Protex and Dettol) may be a cheap and easy procedure for preventing denture stomatitis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30161256 PMCID: PMC6117035 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203187
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Brands and composition of the antiseptic soaps according to the manufacturers.
| Brands and Composition | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protex® | Dettol® | Lifebuoy® |
| Aqua, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Cocamidopropiyl Betaine, Glycol Distearate and Sodium Laureth Sulfate and Cocamide MEA and Laureth-10, PPG-2 Hydroxyethyl Cocamide, Decyl Glucoside, Laureth-7, Parfum, Citric Acid, Sodium Benzoate, Polyquatemium-7, Triclocarban, Tetrasodium EDTA, Poloxamer 124, Fucus Vesiculosos Extract, Sodium Chloride, Methylchloroisothiazolinone and Metylisothiazolinone, Hexyl Cinnamal, Limonene, Butylhenyl Methylpropional, Citronellol | Aqua, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Cocamidopropiyl Betaine, Salicylic Acid, Chloroxylenol, Glycerin, Polyquaternium-7, Tetrasodium EDTA, Methylchloroisothiazolinone & Methylisothiazolinone, Acrylates/PEG-10 Maleate, Styrene Copolymer, Parfum, Sodium Hydroxide, Citric acid, Sodium Chloride | Aqua, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Cocamidopropiyl Betaine, Parfum, Cocamide MEA, Acrylates Copolymer, Sodium Chloride, PPG-9, Lactic Acid, Glycol Distearate, Glycerin, Helianthus Annuus Seed |
National Bureau of Standards (NBS) system of expressing color differences.
| Critical remark of color difference | NBS |
|---|---|
| 0.0–0.5 | |
| 0.5–1.5 | |
| 1.5–3.0 | |
| 3.0–6.0 | |
| 6.0–12.0 | |
| 12.0 |
*Colorimetry National Bureau of Standards Monograph 104; 1968:47.
Fig 1MICs of the antiseptic soaps (%).
Fig 2CFU/mL (log) of the antiseptic soaps, according to the immersion period (adhesion phase).
Fig 3Concentration of CFU/mL (log) of the antiseptic soap, according to the immersion period (24 hours).
Fig 4Fluorescence values in the adhesion phase depending on the type of soap and storage time.
Fig 5Fluorescence values after 24 hours of biofilm formation depending on the type of soap and storage time.
Fig 6Cell viability in relation to time.
The bars with different letters represent statistically significant differences according to the Bonferroni test (p < 0.05).
Fig 7Cell viability of the disinfectant soaps according to the control group (%).
Dunn’s multiple comparisons among different experimental groups.
| Comparison by groups | P |
|---|---|
| Dettol—Lifebuoy | 1.000 |
| Dettol—Protex | 0.616 |
| Dettol—Control | 0.039 |
| Lifebuoy—Protex | 0.616 |
| Lifebuoy—Control | 0.039 |
| Protex—Control | 1.000 |
Average of the different tested groups.
| Groups | N | Mean | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 3 | 11.00 | |
| Dettol Mic | 3 | 3.50 | |
| Lifebuoy Mic | 3 | 3.50 | |
| Protex Mic | 3 | 8.00 | |
| Total | 12 |
Fig 8Box-plot distribution of the data of the different groups tested for the evaluation of colony-forming units (CFU/mL).
Fig 9Hardness compared to the type of soap.
The bars with different letters represent statistically significant differences according to the Bonferroni test (p < 0.05).
Fig 10Hardness in relation to time.
The bars with different letters represent statistically significant differences according to the Bonferroni test (p < 0.05).
Fig 11Color change relative to the type of soap.
The bars with different letters represent statistically significant differences according to the Bonferroni test (p < 0.05).
Fig 12Color change over time.
The bars with different letters represent statistically significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Clinical Relevance (NBS units).
| Groups | Mean | NBS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DW | 0.52 | 0.48 | |
| DS | 0.48 | 0.44 | |
| PS | 0.32 | 0.30 | |
| LS | 0.50 | 0.46 | |
| DW | 0.62 | 0.58 | |
| DS | 0.29 | 0.27 | |
| PS | 0.43 | 0.40 | |
| LS | 0.53 | 0.49 | |
| DW | 0.63 | 0.59 | |
| DS | 0.37 | 0.35 | |
| PS | 0.49 | 0.45 | |
| LS | 0.62 | 0.57 | |
| DW | 0.57 | 0.53 | |
| DS | 0.54 | 0.50 | |
| PS | 0.55 | 0.51 | |
| LS | 0.57 | 0.53 |