Oral Biofilms. Группа авторов

P: Relationship between oral microbiota and periodontal disease: a systematic review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2018;22:5775–5788.

48Kirst ME, Li EC, Alfant B, Chi YY, Walker C, Magnusson I, Wang GP: Dysbiosis and alterations in predicted functions of the subgingival microbiome in chronic periodontitis. Appl Environ Microbiol 2015;81:783–793.

49Dabdoub SM, Tsigarida AA, Kumar PS: Patient-specific analysis of periodontal and peri-implant microbiomes. J Dent Res 2013;92(12 Suppl):168S–175S.

50O’Donnell LE, Millhouse E, Sherry L, Kean R, Malcolm J, Nile CJ, Ramage G: Polymicrobial Candida biofilms: friends and foe in the oral cavity. FEMS Yeast Res 2015;15:fov077.

51Koo H, Andes DR, Krysan DJ: Candida-streptococcal interactions in biofilm-associated oral diseases. PLoS Pathog 2018;14:e1007342.

52Eick S, Seltmann T, Pfister W: Efficacy of antibiotics to strains of periodontopathogenic bacteria within a single species biofilm – an in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:376–383.

53Berezow AB, Darveau RP: Microbial shift and periodontitis. Periodontol 2000 2011;55:36–47.

54Kumar S, Tadakamadla J, Johnson NW: Effect of toothbrushing frequency on incidence and increment of dental caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2016;95:1230–1236.

55Krishna R, De Stefano JA: Ultrasonic vs. hand instrumentation in periodontal therapy: clinical outcomes. Periodontol 2000 2016;71:113–127.

      56Mizutani K, Aoki A, Coluzzi D, Yukna R, Wang CY, Pavlic V, Izumi Y: Lasers in minimally invasive periodontal and peri-implant therapy. Periodontol 2000 2016;71:185–212.

57Cobb CM, Daubert DM, Davis K, Deming J, Flemmig TF, Pattison A, Roulet JF, Stambaugh RV: Consensus conference findings on supragingival and subgingival air polishing. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2017;38:e1–e4.

58Pleszczynska M, Wiater A, Bachanek T, Szczodrak J: Enzymes in therapy of biofilm-related oral diseases. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 2017;64:337–346.

59Jurczyk K, Nietzsche S, Ender C, Sculean A, Eick S: In-vitro activity of sodium-hypochlorite gel on bacteria associated with periodontitis. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:2165–2173.

60Gao L, Liu Y, Kim D, Li Y, Hwang G, Naha PC, Cormode DP, Koo H: Nanocatalysts promote Streptococcus mutans biofilm matrix degradation and enhance bacterial killing to suppress dental caries in vivo. Biomaterials 2016;101:272–284.

61Rodriguez G, Ruiz B, Faleiros S, Vistoso A, Marro ML, Sanchez J, Urzua I, Cabello R: Probiotic compared with standard milk for high-caries children: a cluster randomized trial. J Dent Res 2016;95:402–407.

62Tekce M, Ince G, Gursoy H, Dirikan Ipci S, Cakar G, Kadir T, Yilmaz S: Clinical and microbiological effects of probiotic lozenges in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: a 1-year follow-up study. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42:363–372.

63He J, Hwang G, Liu Y, Gao L, Kilpatrick-Liverman L, Santarpia P, Zhou X, Koo H: l-arginine modifies the exopolysaccharide matrix and thwarts Streptococcus mutans outgrowth within mixed-species oral biofilms. J Bacteriol 2016;198:2651–2661.

      Sigrun Eick

      University of Bern

      Department of Periodontology

      Freiburgstrasse 7

      CH–3010 Bern (Switzerland)

      [email protected]

       Biofilm in General

      Published online: December 21, 2020

      Eick S (ed): Oral Biofilms. Monogr Oral Sci. Basel, Karger, 2021, vol 29, pp 12–18 (DOI: 10.1159/000510195)

      ______________________

Biofilms in Dental Unit Water Lines

      Gunnar Dahlen

      Oral Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

      ______________________

      Abstract

      Biofilm formation has become a significant problem in dental unit water lines (DUWLs). The formation of biofilms and microbial growth in DUWLs leads to an unacceptably high number of microorganisms in the water used for spraying, cooling, and ultrasonication procedures. These procedures form aerosols which can be inhaled by the patients, and consequently dentistry constitutes an area of specific concern for patient safety. In particular, older and immunocompromised patients are at risk of serious respiratory tract infections if the water contains pathogens such as Legionella pneumophila and Pseudomonas spp. In the EU it is recommended that the water in DUWLs should not exceed 200 colony-forming units (CFU) of heterotrophic bacteria (bacteria living on organic material) per milliliter of water to be acceptable in dental work. A number of efficient products are available on the market that can be applied onto dental units. New dental units are nowadays equipped with “inbuilt” systems. Such measures have resulted in an acceptable standard of water in 95% of the 1,200 dental units in the Public Dental Health Service of the Västra Götalands region of Sweden that were followed yearly for 4 years. For the majority of the remaining DUWLs with an unacceptable standard this is due to neglect or inappropriate routines for water-cleaning procedures. It is the ability to follow instructions rather than the cleaning procedure itself that is decisive if clinics and dental units are to have an appropriate standard of water in their systems.

      © 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel

Biofilm formation has become a significant problem in dental unit water lines (DUWLs) and the problem has been the subject of numerous investigations to determine the magnitude and risks, and its practical control [1–4]. The microorganisms of the biofilms are predominantly non-pathogenic heterotrophic environmental bacteria, although pathogenic bacteria such as Legionella pneumophila and Pseudomonas species can frequently be found [2, 4]. The variations from one country or clinic to another can also be substantial [3]. Contaminated unit water has become a major concern for dentistry due to the potential risk of causing respiratory tract infections, especially in elderly and immunocompromised patients. This review considers biofilm formation