Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms--which stain is suitable?

BACKGROUND There is confusion over the definition of the term "viability state(s)" of microorganisms. "Viability staining" or "vital staining techniques" are used to distinguish live from dead bacteria. These stainings, first established on planctonic bacteria, may have serious shortcomings when applied to multispecies biofilms. Results of staining techniques should be compared with appropriate microbiological data. DISCUSSION Many terms describe "vitality states" of microorganisms, however, several of them are misleading. Authors define "viable" as "capable to grow". Accordingly, staining methods are substitutes, since no staining can prove viability.The reliability of a commercial "viability" staining assay (Molecular Probes) is discussed based on the corresponding product information sheet: (I) Staining principle; (II) Concentrations of bacteria; (III) Calculation of live/dead proportions in vitro. Results of the "viability" kit are dependent on the stains' concentration and on their relation to the number of bacteria in the test. Generally this staining system is not suitable for multispecies biofilms, thus incorrect statements have been published by users of this technique.To compare the results of the staining with bacterial parameters appropriate techniques should be selected. The assessment of Colony Forming Units is insufficient, rather the calculation of Plating Efficiency is necessary. Vital fluorescence staining with Fluorescein Diacetate and Ethidium Bromide seems to be the best proven and suitable method in biofilm research.Regarding the mutagenicity of staining components users should be aware that not only Ethidium Bromide might be harmful, but also a variety of other substances of which the toxicity and mutagenicity is not reported. SUMMARY - The nomenclature regarding "viability" and "vitality" should be used carefully.- The manual of the commercial "viability" kit itself points out that the kit is not suitable for natural multispecies biofilm research, as supported by an array of literature.- Results obtained with various stains are influenced by the relationship between bacterial counts and the amount of stain used in the test. Corresponding vitality data are prone to artificial shifting.- As microbiological parameter the Plating Efficiency should be used for comparison.- Ethidium Bromide is mutagenic. Researchers should be aware that alternative staining compounds may also be or even are mutagenic

Action of food preservatives on 14-days dental biofilm formation, biofilm vitality and biofilm-derived enamel demineralisation in situ

AIMS The aims of this double-blind, controlled, crossover study were to assess the influence of food preservatives on in situ dental biofilm growth and vitality, and to evaluate their influence on the ability of dental biofilm to demineralize underlying enamel over a period of 14 days. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty volunteers wore appliances with six specimens each of bovine enamel to build up intra-oral biofilms. During four test cycles of 14 days, the subjects had to place the appliance in one of the assigned controls or active solutions twice a day for a minute: negative control 0.9 % saline, 0.1 % benzoate (BA), 0.1 % sorbate (SA) and 0.2 % chlorhexidine (CHX positive control). After 14 days, the biofilms on two of the slabs were stained to visualize vital and dead bacteria to assess biofilm thickness (BT) and bacterial vitality (BV). Further, slabs were taken to determine mineral loss (ML), by quantitative light-induced laser fluorescence (QLF) and transversal microradiography (TMR), moreover the lesion depths (LD). RESULTS Nineteen subjects completed all test cycles. Use of SA, BA and CHX resulted in a significantly reduced BV compared to NaCl (p  0.05) for both parameters. TMR analysis revealed the highest LD values in the NaCl group (43.6 ± 44.2 μm) and the lowest with CHX (11.7 ± 39.4 μm), while SA (22.9 ± 45.2 μm) and BA (21.4 ± 38.5 μm) lay in between. Similarly for ML, the highest mean values of 128.1 ± 207.3 vol% μm were assessed for NaCl, the lowest for CHX (-16.8 ± 284.2 vol% μm), while SA and BA led to values of 83.2 ± 150.9 and 98.4 ± 191.2 vol% μm, respectively. With QLF for both controls, NaCl (-33.8 ± 101.3 mm(2) %) and CHX (-16.9 ± 69.9 mm(2) %), negative values were recorded reflecting a diminution of fluorescence, while positive values were found with SA (33.9 ± 158.2 mm(2) %) and BA (24.8 ± 118.0 mm(2) %) depicting a fluorescence gain. These differences were non-significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION The biofilm model permited the assessment of undisturbed oral biofilm formation influenced by antibacterial components under clinical conditions for a period of 14 days. An effect of BA and SA on the demineralization of enamel could be demonstrated by TMR and QLF, but these new findings have to be seen as a trend. As part of our daily diet, these preservatives exert an impact on the metabolism of the dental biofilm, and therefore may even influence demineralization processes of the underlying dental enamel in situ