Transmission of Monospecies and Dual-Species Biofilms from Smooth to Nanopillared Surfaces.

The transmission of bacteria in biofilms from donor to receiver surfaces precedes the formation of biofilms in many applications. Biofilm transmission is different from bacterial adhesion, because it involves biofilm compression in between two surfaces, followed by a separation force leading to the detachment of the biofilm from the donor surface and subsequent adhesion to the receiver surface. Therewith, the transmission depends on a balance between donor and receiver surface properties and the cohesiveness of the biofilm itself. Here, we compare bacterial transmission from biofilms of an extracellular-polymeric-substance (EPS)-producing and a non-EPS-producing staphylococcal strain and a dual-species oral biofilm from smooth silicon (Si) donor surfaces to smooth and nanopillared Si receiver surfaces. Biofilms were fully covering the donor surface before transmission. However, after transmission, the biofilms only partly covered the donor and receiver surfaces regardless of nanopillaring, indicating bacterial transmission through adhesive failure at the interface between biofilms and donor surfaces as well as through cohesive failure in the biofilms. The numbers of bacteria per unit volume in EPS-producing staphylococcal biofilms before transmission were 2-fold smaller than in biofilms of the non-EPS-producing strain and of dual species. This difference increased after transmission in the biofilm left behind on the donor surfaces due to an increased bacterial density for the non-EPS-producing strain and a dual-species biofilm. This suggests that biofilms of the non-EPS-producing strain and dual species remained compressed after transmission, while biofilms of the EPS-producing strain were induced to produce more EPS during transmission and relaxed toward their initial state after transmission due to the viscoelasticity conferred to the biofilm by its EPS.IMPORTANCE Bacterial transmission from biofilm-covered surfaces to surfaces is mechanistically different from bacterial adhesion to surfaces and involves detachment from the donor and adhesion to the receiver surfaces under pressure. Bacterial transmission occurs, for instance, in food processing or packaging, in household situations, or between surfaces in hospitals. Patients admitted to a hospital room previously occupied by a patient with antibiotic-resistant pathogens are at elevated infection risk by the same pathogens through transmission. Nanopillared receiver surfaces did not collect less biofilm from a smooth donor than a smooth receiver, likely because the pressure applied during transmission negated the smaller contact area between bacteria and nanopillared surfaces, generally held responsible for reduced adhesion. Biofilm left behind on smooth donor surfaces of a non-extracellular-polymeric-substance (EPS)-producing strain and dual species had undergone different structural changes than an EPS-producing strain, which is important for their possible further treatment by antimicrobials or disinfectants.

Self-perceived mouthfeel and physico-chemical surface effects after chewing gums containing sorbitol and Magnolia bark extract.

The European Food Safety Authority recognizes the contribution of sugar-free chewing gum to oral health through increased salivation, clearance of food debris, and neutralization of biofilm pH. Magnolia bark extract is a gum additive shown to reduce the prevalence of bad-breath bacteria but its effects on self-perceived mouthfeel are unknown. This paper aims to relate the effects of sorbitol-containing chewing gum, with and without Magnolia bark extract, on tooth-surface hydrophobicity and salivary-film composition with self-perceived mouthfeel. In a crossover clinical trial, volunteers chewed sorbitol-containing gum, with or without Magnolia bark extract added, three times daily during a 4-wk time period. A subset of volunteers also chewed Parafilm as a mastication control. Oral moistness and tooth smoothness were assessed using questionnaires, and intra-oral water-contact angles were measured before, immediately after, and 60 min after, chewing. Simultaneously, saliva samples were collected, placed on glass slides, and the compositions of the adsorbed film were measured using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Chewing of gum, regardless of whether or not it contained Magnolia bark extract, improved self-perceived mouthfeel up to 60 min, concurrent with a more hydrophilic tooth surface and an increased amount of O1s electrons bound at 532.6 eV in salivary films. Chewing of Parafilm affected neither tooth-surface hydrophobicity nor salivary-film composition. Accordingly, adsorption of sorbitol, rather than the presence of Magnolia bark extract or increased salivation, is responsible for improved self-perceived mouthfeel.

Potential benefits of chewing gum for the delivery of oral therapeutics and its possible role in oral healthcare.

INTRODUCTION: Over the years, chewing gum has developed from a candy towards an oral health-promoting nutraceutical. This review summarizes evidence for the oral health benefits of chewing gum, emphasizing identification of active ingredients in gum that facilitate prevention and removal of oral biofilm. AREAS COVERED: Chewing of sugar-free gum yields oral health benefits that include clearance of food debris, reduction in oral dryness, increase of biofilm pH and remineralization of enamel. These basic effects of chewing gum are attributed to increased mastication and salivation. Active ingredients incorporated in chewing gums aim to expand these effects to inhibition of extrinsic tooth stain and calculus formation, enhanced enamel remineralization, reduction of the numbers of bacteria in saliva and amount of oral biofilm, neutralization of biofilm pH, and reduction of volatile sulfur compounds. EXPERT OPINION: Evidence for oral-health benefits of chewing gum additives is hard to obtain due to their relatively low concentrations and rapid wash-out. Clinical effects of gum additives are overshadowed by effects of increased mastication and salivation due to the chewing of gum and require daily chewing of gum for prolonged periods of time. Future studies on active ingredients should focus on specifically targeting pathogenic bacteria, whilst leaving the healthy microbiome unaffected.

Quantification and qualification of bacteria trapped in chewed gum.

Chewing of gum contributes to the maintenance of oral health. Many oral diseases, including caries and periodontal disease, are caused by bacteria. However, it is unknown whether chewing of gum can remove bacteria from the oral cavity. Here, we hypothesize that chewing of gum can trap bacteria and remove them from the oral cavity. To test this hypothesis, we developed two methods to quantify numbers of bacteria trapped in chewed gum. In the first method, known numbers of bacteria were finger-chewed into gum and chewed gums were molded to standard dimensions, sonicated and plated to determine numbers of colony-forming-units incorporated, yielding calibration curves of colony-forming-units retrieved versus finger-chewed in. In a second method, calibration curves were created by finger-chewing known numbers of bacteria into gum and subsequently dissolving the gum in a mixture of chloroform and tris-ethylenediaminetetraacetic-acid (TE)-buffer. The TE-buffer was analyzed using quantitative Polymerase-Chain-Reaction (qPCR), yielding calibration curves of total numbers of bacteria versus finger-chewed in. Next, five volunteers were requested to chew gum up to 10 min after which numbers of colony-forming-units and total numbers of bacteria trapped in chewed gum were determined using the above methods. The qPCR method, involving both dead and live bacteria yielded higher numbers of retrieved bacteria than plating, involving only viable bacteria. Numbers of trapped bacteria were maximal during initial chewing after which a slow decrease over time up to 10 min was observed. Around 10(8) bacteria were detected per gum piece depending on the method and gum considered. The number of species trapped in chewed gum increased with chewing time. Trapped bacteria were clearly visualized in chewed gum using scanning-electron-microscopy. Summarizing, using novel methods to quantify and qualify oral bacteria trapped in chewed gum, the hypothesis is confirmed that chewing of gum can trap and remove bacteria from the oral cavity.