Antibacterial, antibiofilm and anticaries effect of BioXtra® mouthrinse for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients under a microcosm biofilm model.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Considering the lack of studies investigating salivary substitutes to control post-radiation caries for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC), this study aimed to evaluate the antibacterial, antibiofilm, and anticaries effects of BioXtra® on the microcosm biofilm formed on different enamel types (non-irradiated and irradiated) and from distinct saliva sources (control and HNC patients). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Non-irradiated and irradiated enamel specimens were treated with BioXtra®, phosphate-buffered-saline (PBS; negative control), or 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX; positive control) for 1 min. Biofilm was produced from human saliva (healthy participants with normal salivary flow for the control group or irradiated HNC patients with hyposalivation for the HNC group), mixed with McBain saliva, under 0.2% sucrose exposure, daily submitted to the treatments (1 min), for 5 days. Bacterial metabolic activity, biofilm viability, CFU counting, and enamel demineralization were determined. RESULTS: BioXtra® significantly reduced the bacterial metabolic activity for both enamel types and the inoculum sources, being more effective for the irradiated enamel or for the saliva from the control group. Similarly, BioXtra® significantly reduced the biofilm viability, the CFU for total microorganisms, mutans streptococci, and lactobacilli, and was able to significantly reduce the mineral loss and the lesion depth compared to PBS. CHX was an effective treatment to significantly reduce all parameters, performing better than BioXtra® and reinforcing its reliable efficiency as a positive control. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the enamel type and the inoculum source, BioXtra® presented antibacterial, antibiofilm, and anticaries effects under this experimental model, which should be confirmed in further clinical studies.

Required time for pre-oncological dental management - A rapid review of the literature.

This study identified the scientific literature comparing the influence of different times in which dental procedures were performed before the oncological treatments (radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy) on the risk of oral complications development. MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase databases were searched, and articles were selected by title, abstract and full-text assessment. The search identified 2,356 articles and three retrospective observational studies were included. Data were collected and analyzed according to the dental procedure, the time before oncological treatment, and oral complications. Risk of bias (ROBINS) and certainty of evidence (GRADE) were evaluated. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed from dental extractions (Exo) data according to the time which were performed and ORN development using a random-effect model (RR and 95 % CI, p < 0.05). meta-analyses showed a higher risk of ORN development in patients with Exo performed < 2 weeks before oncological treatment than in those who Exo was performed > 2 weeks ≤ 1 month before oncological therapy (RR 1.29; 95 % CI 1.12-1.48; p < 0.01). There was a higher prevalence of oral mucositis (OM) in patients who received periodontal treatment ≤ 3 weeks before oncological therapy than those who received dental procedures > 3 weeks ≤ 6 months before. Although the risk of bias ranged from serious to critical, with very low certainty of evidence, the findings suggest that dental extractions should be performed within > 2 weeks before oncological treatment to avoid ORN complications. More studies are needed to conclude the appropriate time to perform dental procedures to decrease other associated oral complications. (CRD42021272652).

Population-based virucidal phthalocyanine gargling/rinsing protocol to reduce the risk of coronavirus disease-2019: a community trial.

Aim: In this community trial, the objective was to evaluate the incidence of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) cases in two similar communities in three distinct phases: 1 (before the intervention), 2 (during the intervention), and 3 (after the intervention). Methods: The test community received the oral antiseptic intervention (experimental), while the control community did not. The official information agency ("Statewise System for Data Analysis") provided the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. Data were analyzed according to the three phases per epidemiological week (epi) using the R Core Team (2021) program. The relative risk and 95% confidence intervals between the cumulative incidence values of the test and control communities were calculated for each period. In the test community, a total of 995 residents over 10 years of age received two bottles containing 600 ml of mouthwash containing antiviral phthalocyanine derivative (APD). The participants were asked to gargle/rinse with of 5 mL of the mouthwash containing ADP 3 to 5 times a day, for 1 min, until the bottles were empty. Results: In phases 1 and 3, the disease risk between the two communities did not differ significantly (p>0.05), while in phase 2, the disease risk was 54% lower in the test community than in the control community. Conclusion: The use of the APD mouthwash protocol seems to reduce the COVID-19 incidence at the population level, and further studies are needed to confirm its protective effect under more precisely controlled conditions.