To preserve oral health and to maintain the prosthetic devices, it is important not only to improve the properties of commonly known hygiene products, but also to investigate new materials with antimicrobial action. Objectives This study evaluated the antimicrobial activity of sodium hypochlorite (0.25% and 0.50%) and 10% Ricinus communis’ solutions against specific microorganisms.Material and Methods Sixty four maxillary complete denture wearers were instructed to brush their dentures three times a day and to soak them (20 min/day) in the solutions: SH1: 0.25% sodium hypochlorite; SH2: 0.5% sodium hypochlorite; RC: 10% R. communis oil; and C: 0.85% saline (control). The solutions were used for 7 days in a randomized sequence. Following each period of use, there was a 1-week washout period. Antimicrobial activity was determined by Colony Forming Units (CFU) counts of Streptococcus mutans, Candida spp., and gram-negative microorganisms. For collecting biofilm, the internal surface of maxillary dentures was brushed with saline solution, and biofilm suspension obtained. After dilutions (100 - 10-3), aliquots were seeded in Mitis salivarius, CHROMagar Candida®, and MacConkey agar for detecting S. mutans, Candida spp., or gram-negative microorganisms, respectively. After incubation, colonies were counted, and CFU/mL values were calculated. Then, transformation - log10 (CFU+1) - data were analyzed using the Friedman test (α=0.05). Results showed significant differences between the solutions (p<0.001).Results All three solutions showed antimicrobial activity against S. mutans. Against Candida spp., RC and SH1 solutions showed similar effect while SH2 showed superior activity. SH1 and SH2 solutions showed antimicrobial action against gram-negative microorganisms. The Candida species most frequently isolated was C. albicans, followed by C. tropicalis and C. glabrata.Conclusions The 0.5% sodium hypochlorite solution was the most effective and might be used to control denture biofilm. C. albicans was the most frequently isolated Candida sp.

The development of opportunistic infections due to poor denture hygiene conditions justified the search for effective hygiene protocols for controlling denture biofilm. Objective This study evaluated Ricinus communis and sodium hypochlorite solutions in terms of biofilm removal ability, remission of candidiasis, antimicrobial activity, and participant satisfaction.Material and Methods It was conducted a controlled clinical trial, randomized, double-blind, and crossover. Sixty-four denture wearers with (n=24) and without candidiasis (n=40) were instructed to brush (3 times/day) and immerse their dentures (20 min/day) in different storage solutions (S1 / S2: 0.25% / 0.5% sodium hypochlorite; S3: 10% R. communis; S4: Saline).The trial period for each solution was seven days and a washout period of seven days was used before starting the use of another solution. The variables were analyzed at baseline and after each trial period. The biofilm of inner surfaces of maxillary dentures was disclosed, photographed, and total and dyed areas were measured (Image Tool software). The percentage of biofilm was calculated. Remission of candidiasis was assessed by visual scale and score were attributed. Antimicrobial activity was assessed by the DNA-Checkerboard hybridization method. Patient satisfaction was measured using a questionnaire.Results S1 (4.41±7.98%) and S2 (2.93±5.23%) were more effective then S3 (6.95±10.93%) in biofilm remotion(P<0.0001). All solutions were different from the control (11.07±11.99%). S3 was the most effective solution in remission of candidiasis (50%), followed by S1 (46%). Concerning antimicrobial action, S1/S2 were similar and resulted in the lowest microorganism mean count (P=0.04), followed by S3. No significant differences were found with patient’s satisfaction.Conclusions 10% R. communis and 0.25% sodium hypochlorite were effective in biofilm removal, causing remission of candidiasis and reducing the formation of microbial colonies in denture surfaces. All solutions were approved by patients.

No abstract

No abstract

The polished surface of the prosthesis was more susceptible to changes when exposed to hygiene solutions, and although the 0.5% NaOCl solution promoted an increase in the surface roughness compared with the same solution at 0.25% and R. communis at 10%, the values are clinically acceptable.

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

The 0.2% NaOCl showed the best clinical performance and did not cause adverse effects on acrylic resin on laboratory analyses.

The disadvantage of liners materials is the difficulty of biofilm control. It was compared an experimental dentifrice contained Ricinus communis, with commercials dentifrices as antibiofilm activity against microorganisms on denture liner. Six hundred specimens were distributed in 5 groups (n=18/ microorganism): water; experimental dentifrice; specific dentifrice for denture and two conventional dentifrices against C. albicans; C. glabrata; S. mutans; S. aureus; E. coli. Each group had a negative (n=5; without contamination) and positive control (n=15/ microorganism; without cleaning). The antibiofilm activity was evaluated by the method of biofilm formation in triplicate. The specimens were contaminated in a standard way and incubated. After that, manual brushing was performed (60 s), washed with PBS, immersed in liquid culture medium for resuspension and sowing in solid medium. The results (mean of triplicates) were expressed in CFU/mL. The data was submitted to Shapiro-Wilk, ANOVA and Tukey test (p<0.05). The specific dentifrice (1.27±1.20) was the most effective against S. mutans, followed by conventional (Trihydral, 3.13±0.88; Colgate, 2.16±2.02) and experimental (3.81±1.37) dentifrices, which were similar to each other (p=0.008). All of them were different from water (4.79±1.42). The specific (0.21±0.21) and experimental (0.36±0.25) dentifrices were similar against S. aureus, with a higher mean of CFU when compared to conventional (Colgate, 0.06±0.13), which was more efficient (p=0.000). For C. albicans, C. glabrata and E. coli, all dentifrices were similar to water (p=0.186). It was concluded, that the experimental dentifrice was effective against S. aureus and had not efficacy against Candida spp.; S. mutans; E. coli, as occurred with the commercials dentifrices.