An in vitro comparison of four antibacterial agents with and without nicotine and their effects on human gingival fibroblasts

Abstract

Background The purpose of the study was to compare anti‐bacterial activity of 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX), 10% povidone iodine (PVD), Vega oral care gel (VEGA), and antioxidant gel (AO) on Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Porphyromonas gingivalis with and without nicotine and to evaluate their effects on human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs). Methods S. mutans, S. sanguis, P. gingivalis, and F. nucleatum were incubated with serial dilutions (1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, and 1/64) of anti‐bacterial agents in media (with and without nicotine). Minimum inhibitory and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MIC/MBC) were measured, and confocal microscopy was performed. HGFs were exposed to serial dilutions (1/10, 1/100, 1/1000, and 1/10,000) of antibacterial agents with media. Water‐soluble tetrazolium‐1 (WST‐1) assay and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assay were used to assess proliferation and cytotoxicity towards HGFs. Results CHX and PVD significantly inhibited growth of all bacterial species (P < 0.0001) at all dilutions. AO and VEGA inhibited growth of all bacterial species up to only the 1/4 dilution. CHX and PVD decreased HGF proliferation at 1/10 and 1/100 dilution, whereas AO at all dilutions (P < 0.05). CHX and AO were cytotoxic at all dilutions (P < 0.05). VEGA was not cytotoxic to HGFs and did not affect HGF proliferation at any dilution (P > 0.05). An increased bacterial growth was seen for all species except P. gingivalis with addition of nicotine. Conclusion CHX and PVD demonstrate superior antibacterial properties, but significantly reduce HGF proliferation. AO is bacteriostatic at lower dilutions but is highly toxic to HGFs. VEGA was bacteriostatic and demonstrated no detrimental effects on HGF's.

Selective Antimicrobial Effects of an Herbal Compound Rinse Against Multi-species Oral Biofilms

“…This result is similar to a recent study, which evaluated four antibacterial agents and their effects on human gingival broblasts; CHX inhibited growth of all bacterial species including S. mutans, S. sanguis, F. nucleatum, and P. gingivalis at different dilutions while SL inhibited bacterial growth at 1/4 dilutions. 29 This selective action promising as it contributes to the selective retention of health-related commensal bacteria. 30,31 Nonetheless, the SL mouthwash was particularly effective against pathogenic bacteria, such as Fusobacterium nucleatum and Porphyromonas gingivalis, as evidenced in Fig.…”

“…An independent study also provided similar results where SL was bacteriostatic up to the 1/4th dilution, while CHX remained bactericidal up to the 1/64 dilution. 29 More importantly, SL was not cytotoxic to human gingival broblasts (HGF) and did not affect HGF proliferation at any dilution when CHX was cytotoxic at all dilutions. 29 Similar results have been previously reported by Zhou et al in which SL was cytocompatible to cells critical to oral wound healing and promoted broblast migration and differentiation when compared to CHX.…”

“…29 More importantly, SL was not cytotoxic to human gingival broblasts (HGF) and did not affect HGF proliferation at any dilution when CHX was cytotoxic at all dilutions. 29 Similar results have been previously reported by Zhou et al in which SL was cytocompatible to cells critical to oral wound healing and promoted broblast migration and differentiation when compared to CHX. 24 This is a signi cant advantage as commensal bacteria contribute to averting opportunistic infections and maintaining oral homeostasis.…”

Use of alternative antiseptics in dentistry: Literature review

“…The principle of similar proposed by Dr. Hahnemann, tries to select treatments trying to match the symptoms of drugs with the symptoms in sick patients, it is to create a cure with the same disease [24] . An in vitro study comparing four antibacterial agents and their effect on gingival fibroblasts involved chlorhexidine 0.12%, 10% povidone iodine, VEGA oral gel, which is a compound of homeopathic active components and an antioxidant gel, against Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Porphyromonas gingival is, different serial dilutions were performed in the methodology: 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 and 1/64, the result was that chlorhexidine 0.12%, 10% povidone iodine inhibited the bacterial growth of all bacteria in all dilutions, but diminished the proliferation of fibroblasts in some dilutions, as well as the antioxidant gel, the only one that was not cytotoxic and did not affect the proliferation of fibroblasts was the VEGA gel [28] . An investigation aimed at evaluating the cytocompatibility of an oral rinse composed of Stella Life VEGA herbal extract in surgical wound healing compared to chlorhexidine found minimal cytotoxicity in the Life group in addition to significantly accelerated cell migration and fibroblast differentiation, while chlorhexidine impaired healing responses and was found to be cytotoxic [25] .…”