This study investigated the cariogenic potential of biofilms originating from different types of inoculum (saliva and dental plaque) from caries-active and caries-free individuals. Ten volunteers were selected from each caries condition for the paired collection of saliva and dental plaque. Microcosm biofilms were grown in triplicate from each inoculum on enamel specimens in 24-well plates under cariogenic challenge. After 10 days, the biofilms were collected for analysis of outcome variables: percentage of surface hardness change (%SHC) and microbiological composition of biofilms. Statistical analysis was performed using the t test, the linear multivariate analysis model and Pearson's correlation coefficients (α = 0.05). A comparative analysis between microbiological baseline data showed higher counts of mutans streptococci in plaque samples within caries-active individuals; a comparative analysis of colony-forming unit (CFU) counts between individuals with different caries status showed higher counts of acid-tolerant microorganisms and mutans streptococci in dental plaque and of acid-tolerant microorganisms in saliva. After 10 days of biofilm growth, the CFU values for total microorganisms, lactobacilli, mutans streptococci and acid-tolerant bacteria, as well as for SHC, were not statistically significant, considering the type of inoculum and caries condition (p > 0.05). A positive correlation was found for %SHC and CFU counts of acid-tolerant bacteria (r = 0.406) and lactobacilli (r = 0.379). Under the limits of this study, the cariogenic potential of biofilms, formed under identical conditions in vitro, is similar, regardless of baseline differences between the source and type of inoculum.

Keywords:
Demineralization, Dental caries, Dental plaque, Microcosms, Saliva
1.
Azevedo MS, van de Sande FH, Maske TT, Signori C, Romano AR, Cenci MS: Correlation between the cariogenic response in biofilms generated from saliva of mother/child pairs. Biofouling 2014;30:903-909.
2.
Azevedo MS, van de Sande FH, Romano AR, Cenci MS: Microcosm biofilms originating from children with different caries experience have similar cariogenicity under successive sucrose challenges. Caries Res 2011;45:510-517.
3.
Borges FB, Kochhann DELEL, Machado FW, Boscato N, Van De Sande FH, Moraes RR, Cenci MS: Effect of cariogenic challenge on the stability of dentin bonds. J Appl Oral Sci 2014;22:68-72.
4.
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.
5.
Dupont WD, Plummer WD Jr: Power and sample size calculations for studies involving linear regression. Control Clin Trials 1998;19:589-601.
6.
Edlund A, Yang Y, Hall AP, Guo L, Lux R, He X, Nelson KE, Nealson KH, Yooseph S, Shi W, McLean JS: An in vitro biofilm model system maintaining a highly reproducible species and metabolic diversity approaching that of the human oral microbiome. Microbiome 2013;1:25.
7.
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.
8.
Filoche SK, Soma KJ, Sissons CH: Caries-related plaque microcosm biofilms developed in microplates. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2007;22:73-79.
9.
Kim YS, Lee ES, Kwon HK, Kim BI: Monitoring the maturation process of a dental microcosm biofilm using the Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence-Digital (QLF-D). J Dent 2014;42:691-696.
10.
Koo H, Schobel B, Scott-anne K, Watson G, Bowen WH, Cury JA, Rosalen PL, Park YK: Apigenin and tt-farnesol with fluoride effects on S. mutans biofilms and dental caries. J Dent Res 2005;84:1016-1020.
11.
Kuper NK, Opdam NJ, Ruben JL, de Soet JJ, Cenci MS, Bronkhorst EM, Huysmans MC: Gap size and wall lesion development next to composite. J Dent Res 2014;93:108S-113S.
12.
Lee ES, Kang SM, Ko HY, Kwon HK, Kim BI: Association between the cariogenicity of a dental microcosm biofilm and its red fluorescence detected by Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence-Digital (QLF-D). J Dent 2013;41:1264-1270.
13.
Macakova L, Yakubov GE, Plunkett MA, Stokes JR: Influence of ionic strength changes on the structure of pre-adsorbed salivary films. A response of a natural multi-component layer. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2010;77:31-39.
14.
Marsh PD: Microbiology of dental plaque biofilms and their role in oral health and caries. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54:441-454.
15.
Maske TT, Isolan CP, van de Sande FH, Peixoto AC, Faria ESAL, Cenci MS, Moraes RR: A biofilm cariogenic challenge model for dentin demineralization and dentin bonding analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2014;19:1047-1053.
16.
Nyvad B, Crielaard W, Mira A, Takahashi N, Beighton D: Dental caries from a molecular microbiological perspective. Caries Res 2013;47:89-102.
17.
Pearce EI, Sissons CH, Coleman M, Wang X, Anderson SA, Wong L: The effect of sucrose application frequency and basal nutrient conditions on the calcium and phosphate content of experimental dental plaque. Caries Res 2002;36:87-92.
18.
Peralta SL, Carvalho PH, van de Sande FH, Pereira CM, Piva E, Lund RG: Self-etching dental adhesive containing a natural essential oil: anti-biofouling performance and mechanical properties. Biofouling 2013;29:345-355.
19.
Pretty IA, Edgar WM, Smith PW, Higham SM: Quantification of dental plaque in the research environment. J Dent 2005;33:193-207.
20.
Rudney JD, Chen R, Lenton P, Li J, Li Y, Jones RS, Reilly C, Fok AS, Aparicio C: A reproducible oral microcosm biofilm model for testing dental materials. J Appl Microbiol 2012;113:1540-1553.
21.
Sheiham A, James WP: Diet and dental caries: the pivotal role of free sugars reemphasized. J Dent Res 2015;94:1341-1347.
22.
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.
23.
Svensater G, Borgstrom M, Bowden GH, Edwardsson S: The acid-tolerant microbiota associated with plaque from initial caries and healthy tooth surfaces. Caries Res 2003;37:395-403.
24.
Takahashi N: Oral microbiome metabolism: From ‘who are they?' To ‘what are they doing?'. J Dent Res 2015;94:1628-1637.
25.
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.
26.
Tanner AC, Kent RL Jr, Holgerson PL, Hughes CV, Loo CY, Kanasi E, Chalmers NI, Johansson I: Microbiota of severe early childhood caries before and after therapy. J Dent Res 2011;90:1298-1305.
27.
Thylstrup A, Bruun C, Holmen L: In vivo caries models - mechanisms for caries initiation and arrestment. Adv Dent Res 1994;8:144-157.
28.
van de Sande FH, Azevedo MS, Lund RG, Huysmans MC, Cenci MS: An in vitro biofilm model for enamel demineralization and antimicrobial dose-response studies. Biofouling 2011;27:1057-1063.
29.
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.
30.
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.
31.
Zhang K, Melo MA, Cheng L, Weir MD, Bai Y, Xu HH: Effect of quaternary ammonium and silver nanoparticle-containing adhesives on dentin bond strength and dental plaque microcosm biofilms. Dent Mater 2012;28:842-852.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
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.