Ashley N. Bowers , Caroline Coradi Tonon , Sam Yeo , Kinga Vojnits , Rayhan Shah , Sepideh Pakpour , Simone Duarte
{"title":"活性炭和含氟牙膏在口腔生物膜中的抗菌作用。","authors":"Ashley N. Bowers , Caroline Coradi Tonon , Sam Yeo , Kinga Vojnits , Rayhan Shah , Sepideh Pakpour , Simone Duarte","doi":"10.1016/j.archoralbio.2025.106405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Charcoal-containing dentifrices are increasingly popular for their whitening claims, but data on antimicrobial effects are limited. This study compared the antibacterial efficacy of charcoal dentifrices versus non-charcoal dentifrices containing sodium fluoride (NaF), stannous fluoride (SnF₂), or sodium monofluorophosphate (NaMFP) against multi-species oral biofilms.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Biofilms of <em>Streptococcus mutans</em>, <em>S. gordonii</em>, and <em>S. sanguinis</em> were grown on hydroxyapatite discs and treated for 60 s with 6 dentifrice slurries (3 charcoal, 3 non-charcoal dentifrices) or controls (saline and 0.12 % chlorhexidine, CHX). Antibacterial effects were assessed by CFU/mL; (n = 9/group) and qPCR (n = 3/group). For fluoride-type analyses, charcoal and non-charcoal dentifrices were combined (CFU n = 18/type; qPCR n = 6/type). Percent reduction was compared across groups using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>NaF dentifrices exhibited the greatest overall antibacterial activity (46.8 % reduction), followed by NaMFP (34.9 %), while SnF₂ showed minimal effect (≤ 5.7 %). Charcoal inclusion did not enhance efficacy and slightly reduced NaF activity. Species-specific responses varied: NaF eliminated <em>S. gordonii</em>, and significantly reduced <em>S. mutans</em> and <em>S. sanguinis</em>. Charcoal inclusion did not significantly alter species-level viability. qPCR supported CFU trends but showed limited between-group differences. Overall, fluoride type – not charcoal – primarily determined efficacy (NaF > NaMFP > SnF<sub>2</sub>).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Fluoride type had a greater impact on antibacterial efficacy than charcoal. NaF was most effective, while SnF₂ least. Charcoal offered no benefit and may slightly diminish NaF performance. Fluoride choice is more critical than charcoal additives for caries prevention.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8288,"journal":{"name":"Archives of oral biology","volume":"180 ","pages":"Article 106405"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antibacterial effects of charcoal and fluoride dentifrices in oral biofilms\",\"authors\":\"Ashley N. Bowers , Caroline Coradi Tonon , Sam Yeo , Kinga Vojnits , Rayhan Shah , Sepideh Pakpour , Simone Duarte\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.archoralbio.2025.106405\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Charcoal-containing dentifrices are increasingly popular for their whitening claims, but data on antimicrobial effects are limited. This study compared the antibacterial efficacy of charcoal dentifrices versus non-charcoal dentifrices containing sodium fluoride (NaF), stannous fluoride (SnF₂), or sodium monofluorophosphate (NaMFP) against multi-species oral biofilms.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Biofilms of <em>Streptococcus mutans</em>, <em>S. gordonii</em>, and <em>S. sanguinis</em> were grown on hydroxyapatite discs and treated for 60 s with 6 dentifrice slurries (3 charcoal, 3 non-charcoal dentifrices) or controls (saline and 0.12 % chlorhexidine, CHX). Antibacterial effects were assessed by CFU/mL; (n = 9/group) and qPCR (n = 3/group). For fluoride-type analyses, charcoal and non-charcoal dentifrices were combined (CFU n = 18/type; qPCR n = 6/type). Percent reduction was compared across groups using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>NaF dentifrices exhibited the greatest overall antibacterial activity (46.8 % reduction), followed by NaMFP (34.9 %), while SnF₂ showed minimal effect (≤ 5.7 %). Charcoal inclusion did not enhance efficacy and slightly reduced NaF activity. Species-specific responses varied: NaF eliminated <em>S. gordonii</em>, and significantly reduced <em>S. mutans</em> and <em>S. sanguinis</em>. Charcoal inclusion did not significantly alter species-level viability. qPCR supported CFU trends but showed limited between-group differences. Overall, fluoride type – not charcoal – primarily determined efficacy (NaF > NaMFP > SnF<sub>2</sub>).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Fluoride type had a greater impact on antibacterial efficacy than charcoal. NaF was most effective, while SnF₂ least. Charcoal offered no benefit and may slightly diminish NaF performance. Fluoride choice is more critical than charcoal additives for caries prevention.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of oral biology\",\"volume\":\"180 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106405\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of oral biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000399692500233X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of oral biology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000399692500233X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Antibacterial effects of charcoal and fluoride dentifrices in oral biofilms
Objectives
Charcoal-containing dentifrices are increasingly popular for their whitening claims, but data on antimicrobial effects are limited. This study compared the antibacterial efficacy of charcoal dentifrices versus non-charcoal dentifrices containing sodium fluoride (NaF), stannous fluoride (SnF₂), or sodium monofluorophosphate (NaMFP) against multi-species oral biofilms.
Methods
Biofilms of Streptococcus mutans, S. gordonii, and S. sanguinis were grown on hydroxyapatite discs and treated for 60 s with 6 dentifrice slurries (3 charcoal, 3 non-charcoal dentifrices) or controls (saline and 0.12 % chlorhexidine, CHX). Antibacterial effects were assessed by CFU/mL; (n = 9/group) and qPCR (n = 3/group). For fluoride-type analyses, charcoal and non-charcoal dentifrices were combined (CFU n = 18/type; qPCR n = 6/type). Percent reduction was compared across groups using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests.
Results
NaF dentifrices exhibited the greatest overall antibacterial activity (46.8 % reduction), followed by NaMFP (34.9 %), while SnF₂ showed minimal effect (≤ 5.7 %). Charcoal inclusion did not enhance efficacy and slightly reduced NaF activity. Species-specific responses varied: NaF eliminated S. gordonii, and significantly reduced S. mutans and S. sanguinis. Charcoal inclusion did not significantly alter species-level viability. qPCR supported CFU trends but showed limited between-group differences. Overall, fluoride type – not charcoal – primarily determined efficacy (NaF > NaMFP > SnF2).
Conclusions
Fluoride type had a greater impact on antibacterial efficacy than charcoal. NaF was most effective, while SnF₂ least. Charcoal offered no benefit and may slightly diminish NaF performance. Fluoride choice is more critical than charcoal additives for caries prevention.
期刊介绍:
Archives of Oral Biology is an international journal which aims to publish papers of the highest scientific quality in the oral and craniofacial sciences. The journal is particularly interested in research which advances knowledge in the mechanisms of craniofacial development and disease, including:
Cell and molecular biology
Molecular genetics
Immunology
Pathogenesis
Cellular microbiology
Embryology
Syndromology
Forensic dentistry