| Literature DB >> 35236778 |
Chiao-Wen Lin1,2, Yi-Tzu Chen1,2,3, Hsieh-Hsun Ho4, Yi-Wei Kuo4, Wen-Yang Lin4, Jui-Fen Chen4, Jia-Hung Lin4, Cheng-Ruei Liu4, Chi-Huei Lin4, Yao-Tsung Yeh5, Ching-Wei Chen4, Yu-Fen Huang4, Chen-Hung Hsu4, Pei-Shan Hsieh4, Shun-Fa Yang6,7.
Abstract
The oral cavity plays a crucial role in food digestion and immune protection. Thus, maintaining oral health is necessary. Postbiotic and heat-killed probiotic cells have shown increased antibacterial potential with stable viability compared with live strains. However, clinical evidence regarding their effect on oral health is insufficient. Therefore, in this study, we tested postbiotic lozenges of Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salicinius AP-32, L. paracasei ET-66, and L. plantarum LPL28 and heat-killed probiotic lozenges of L. salivarius subsp. salicinius AP-32 and L. paracasei ET-66 for their effect on oral health. In total, 75 healthy individuals were blindly and randomly divided into placebo, postbiotic lozenge, and heat-killed probiotic lozenge groups and were administered the respective lozenge type for 4 weeks. Postbiotic and heat-killed probiotic lozenge groups demonstrated antibacterial activities with a considerable increase in L. salivarius in their oral cavity. Furthermore, their salivary immunoglobulin A, Lactobacillus, and Bifidobacterium increased. Subjective questionnaires completed by the participants indicated that participants in both the experimental groups developed better oral health and intestinal conditions than those in the placebo group. Overall, our study revealed that a food additive in the form of an oral postbiotic or heat-killed probiotic lozenge may effectively enhance oral immunity, inhibit the growth of oral pathogens, and increase the numbers of beneficial oral microbiota.Entities:
Keywords: immunity; oral cavity; oral diseases; oral microbiota; probiotics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35236778 PMCID: PMC8954981 DOI: 10.18632/aging.203923
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
Figure 1In vitro test for determining the antipathogenic activity of (A) individual postbiotic and (B) probiotic oral lozenges against oral pathogens. (A) Postbiotics of AP-32, ET-66, and LPL28 showed strong antibacterial activities compared with the positive control of LGG postbiotic. (B) Heat-killed AP-32 and ET-66 were used as inactivated probiotics, whereas metabolites of AP-32, ET-66, and LPL28 were used as postbiotics. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001 compared with the positive control group (LGG postbiotic) or the placebo group (without the postbiotic). Data are presented as mean ± SD.
Figure 2Microbial change (%) in saliva samples. Change (%) in the population of (A) S. mutans, (B) total bacteria, (C) Bifidobacterium, and (D) Lactobacillus in participants’ saliva at 0, 2, and 4 weeks of oral lozenge intake. The oral lozenges contained postbiotics or heat-killed cells. Participants in the control group consumed placebo lozenges without the postbiotic content (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001 compared with the control group; #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, and ###p < 0.001 in reference to the values at week 0). Data are presented as medians (n = 25 in each group).
Figure 3Oral lozenges significantly increased salivary IgA levels. Change in Lactobacillus (%) in participants’ saliva at 0, 2, and 4 weeks with the intake of oral lozenges. Oral lozenges contained postbiotics or heat-killed cells. Participants in the control group consumed placebo lozenges without the postbiotic content (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001 compared with the control group; #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, and ###p < 0.001 in reference to values at week 0). Data are presented as medians (n = 25 in each group).
Figure 4LEfSe analysis of differential oral microbiota before and after 4 weeks of consuming oral lozenge. Comparing changes in oral microbiota with the intake of (A) heat-killed probiotic lozenges and (B) postbiotic lozenges (n = 25 in each group).
Figure 5Significant changes in specific oral bacterial strains after consuming heat-killed probiotic or postbiotic oral lozenges. Changes in (A) Veillonella spp., (B) Selenomonas 3 spp., (C) Actinomyces graevenitzii F0530, (D) Prevotella sp. C561, (E) Prevotella sp. oral clone FW035, and (F) L. salivarius after consuming heat-killed probiotic or postbiotic oral lozenges were analyzed through the LEfSe analysis. Comparing changes in oral bacterial concentration (%) in participants’ saliva at 0 (before) or 4 weeks (after) of oral lozenge intake. The oral lozenges contained postbiotics or heat-killed cells. Participants in the control group consumed placebo lozenges without the postbiotic content (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001 compared with the control group; #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, and ###p < 0.001 in reference to the values at week 0). Two-tailed t-tests was performed to analyze the statistical difference of experimental results. Data are presented as means ± SDs (n = 25 in each group).