Objectives: The source of saliva inocula and the individual characteristics of saliva donors could affect the cariogenic activity of in vitro biofilms, but this could also be modulated by environmental determinants, such as the frequency of sugar consumption. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the cariogenicity of microcosm biofilm growths from the saliva of caries-free (CF) children, children with early childhood caries (ECC) and with severe ECC (S-ECC), under regular sucrose exposure. Methods: Microcosm plaque biofilms were initiated from the saliva of CF, ECC and S-ECC children. Biofilms were grown in 24-well microplates on bovine enamel discs for up to 10 days in artificial saliva, which was replaced daily. Growth conditions comprised cariogenic challenge (artificial saliva supplemented with 1% sucrose 6 h/day) or no cariogenic challenge. Daily pH was obtained from the artificial saliva, and after the experimental period, the biofilm formed on the enamel discs was collected for microbiological analyses. Mineral loss in enamel discs was estimated by percentage of surface hardness change. Results: Overall, no statistically significant differences were found among saliva sources (p > 0.05). Streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli counts increased in the biofilms grown under cariogenic challenge (p < 0.05), while a substantial decrease in the artificial saliva pH was detected under the same condition (p < 0.001). Higher demineralization (p < 0.001) was observed under sucrose exposure regardless of caries experience of children. Conclusions: While the sucrose exposure determined the cariogenicity of the biofilms, the caries experience of children who provided the inocula did not affect mineral loss associated with these biofilms.

Keywords:
Sucrose, Biofilm, Dental caries, Dental plaque, Preschool child
1.
Aires CP, Tabchoury CP, Del Bel Cury AA, Koo H, Cury JA: Effect of sucrose concentration on dental biofilm formed in situ and on enamel demineralization. Caries Res 2006;40:28–32.
2.
Box GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS: Statistics for Experimenters. New York, Wiley, 1978.
3.
Cenci MS, Pereira-Cenci T, Cury JA, Ten Cate JM: Relationship between gap size and dentine secondary caries formation assessed in a microcosm biofilm model. Caries Res 2009;43:97–102.
4.
Corby PM, Lyons-Weiler J, Bretz WA, Hart TC, Aas JA, Boumenna T, Goss J, Corby AL, Junior HM, Weyant RJ, Paster BJ: Microbial risk indicators of early childhood caries. J Clin Microbiol 2005;43:5753–5759.
5.
Cury JA, Rebelo MA, Del Bel Cury AA, Derbyshire MT, Tabchoury CP: Biochemical composition and cariogenicity of dental plaque formed in the presence of sucrose or glucose and fructose. Caries Res 2000;34:491–497.
6.
Ellen RP, Banting DW, Fillery ED: Streptococcus mutans and lactobacillus detection in the assessment of dental root surface caries risk. J Dent Res 1985;64:1245–1249.
7.
Feldens CA, Giugliani ER, Vigo A, Vitolo MR: Early feeding practices and severe early childhood caries in four-year-old children from southern brazil: a birth cohort study. Caries Res 2010;44:445–452.
8.
Filoche SK, Soma KJ, Sissons CH: Caries-related plaque microcosm biofilms developed in microplates. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2007;22:73–79.
9.
Filoche SK, Soma D, van Bekkum M, Sissons CH: Plaques from different individuals yield different microbiota responses to oral-antiseptic treatment. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2008;54:27–36.
10.
Gussy MG, Waters EG, Walsh O, Kilpatrick NM: Early childhood caries: current evidence for aetiology and prevention. J Paediatr Child Health 2006;42:37–43.
11.
Hallett KB, O’Rourke PK: Social and behavioural determinants of early childhood caries. Aust Dent J 2003;48:27–33.
12.
Marsh PD: Are dental diseases examples of ecological catastrophes? Microbiology 2003;149:279–294.
13.
Mattila ML, Rautava P, Sillanpaa M, Paunio P: Caries in five-year-old children and associations with family-related factors. J Dent Res 2000;79:875–881.
14.
Mello T, Antunes J, Waldman E, Ramos E, Relvas M, Barros H: Prevalence and severity of dental caries in schoolchildren of Porto, Portugal. Community Dent Health 2008;25:119–125.
15.
Munson MA, Banerjee A, Watson TF, Wade WG: Molecular analysis of the microflora associated with dental caries. J Clin Microbiol 2004;42:3023–3029.
16.
Paes Leme AF, Koo H, Bellato CM, Bedi G, Cury JA: The role of sucrose in cariogenic dental biofilm formation – new insight. J Dent Res 2006;85:878–887.
17.
Parisotto TM, Steiner-Oliveira C, Duque C, Peres RC, Rodrigues LK, Nobre-dos-Santos M: Relationship among microbiological composition and presence of dental plaque, sugar exposure, social factors and different stages of early childhood caries. Arch Oral Biol 2010;55:365–373.
18.
Paster BJ, Boches SK, Galvin JL, Ericson RE, Lau CN, Levanos VA, Sahasrabudhe A, Dewhirst FE: Bacterial diversity in human subgingival plaque. J Bacteriol 2001;183:3770–3783.
19.
Peres MA, de Oliveira Latorre Mdo R, Sheiham A, Peres KG, Barros FC, Hernandez PG, Maas AM, Romano AR, Victora CG: Social and biological early life influences on severity of dental caries in children aged 6 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2005;33:53–63.
20.
Poureslami HR, Van Amerongen WE: Early childhood caries (ECC): an infectious transmissible oral disease. Indian J Pediatr 2009;76:191–194.
21.
Rasiah IA, Wong L, Anderson SA, Sissons CH: Variation in bacterial DGGE patterns from human saliva: over time, between individuals and in corresponding dental plaque microcosms. Arch Oral Biol 2005;50:779–787.
22.
Ribeiro CC, Tabchoury CP, Del Bel Cury AA, Tenuta LM, Rosalen PL, Cury JA: Effect of starch on the cariogenic potential of sucrose. Br J Nutr 2005;94:44–50.
23.
Ruottinen S, Karjalainen S, Pienihakkinen K, Lagstrom H, Niinikoski H, Salminen M, Ronnemaa T, Simell O: Sucrose intake since infancy and dental health in 10-year-old children. Caries Res 2004;38:142–148.
24.
Scheie AA, Petersen FC: The biofilm concept: Consequences for future prophylaxis of oral diseases? Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2004;15:4–12.
25.
Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB: Dental caries. Lancet 2007;369:51–59.
26.
Shklair IL, Keene HJ: A biochemical scheme for the separation of the five varieties of Streptococcus mutans. Arch Oral Biol 1974;19:1079–1081.
27.
Sissons CH: Artificial dental plaque biofilm model systems. Adv Dent Res 1997;11:110–126.
28.
Sissons CH, Anderson SA, Wong L, Coleman MJ, White DC: Microbiota of plaque microcosm biofilms: effect of three times daily sucrose pulses in different simulated oral environments. Caries Res 2007;41:413–422.
29.
Tang G, Yip HK, Cutress TW, Samaranayake LP: Artificial mouth model systems and their contribution to caries research: a review. J Dent 2003;31:161–171.
30.
Vale GC, Tabchoury CP, Del Bel Cury AA, Tenuta LM, ten Cate JM, Cury JA: APF and dentifrice effect on root dentin demineralization and biofilm. J Dent Res 2011;90:77–81.
31.
WHO: Oral Health Surveys: Basic Methods, ed 3. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1997.
32.
Wong L, Sissons C: A comparison of human dental plaque microcosm biofilms grown in an undefined medium and a chemically defined artificial saliva. Arch Oral Biol 2001;46:477–486.
33.
Yano A, Kaneko N, Ida H, Yamaguchi T, Hanada N: Real-time PCR for quantification of Streptococcus mutans. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2002;217:23–30.
34.
Zero DT: In situ caries models. Adv Dent Res 1995;9:214–230, discussion 231–214.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.