In vitro evaluation of the effect of different disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus formed on acrylic ocular prostheses

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis formed on the acrylic surface of ocular prostheses. In this study, 396 acrylic specimens were manufactured (50% for Staphylococcus epidermidis, and 50% for Staphylococcus aureus). For each bacterium, 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 24 hours, 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 48 hours, and 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 72 hours. Then, they were divided into groups according to disinfection method (n = 6): sterile distilled water for 10, 15, 30 min, and 6 hours (control); soap for 30 min (NES30); Opti-Free for 30 min (OPF30) and 6 h (OPF6); Efferdent for 15 min (EFF15); and 0.5%, 2%, and 4% chlorhexidine for 10 min (0.5% CHX10, 2% CHX10, and 4% CHX10). After the treatments, the specimens were vortexed to release the biofilm and the counting of bacterial colonies was performed (CFU/mL). Three-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer HSD test were used (α = 0.05). For Staphylococcus epidermidis, there was no significant difference between NES30, OPF30, and OPF6 with their respective control groups; nor between NES30, OPF30, and OPF6 themselves, regardless of the biofilm development period (P >0.05). For Staphylococcus aureus, there was no significant difference between NES30 and OPF30 with their control group; nor between NES30 and OPF30 themselves, regardless of the biofilm development period (P >0.05). For Staphylococcus aureus, OPF6 showed a significant reduction in the number of CFU/mL when compared with its control group, NES30, and OPF30, regardless of the biofilm development period (P <0.05). For both bacteria, 0.5% CHX10, 2% CHX10,4% CHX10, and EFF15 showed a significant reduction in the number of CFU/mL when compared with their control groups, NES30, OPF30, and OPF6, regardless of the biofilm development period (P <0.05).

Biofilm-Forming Potential of Ocular Fluid Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis on Ex Vivo Human Corneas from Attachment to Dispersal Phase

“…Earlier studies on biofilm formation in ocular isolates of S. aureus and S. epidermidis were done using synthetic material such as silicone, polymethyl-acrylate, hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, etc. [ 25 , 62 , 63 , 90 ], to understand their biofilm formation ability on indwelling devices including contact lenses, sutures, scleral buckles, valvular tubes and keratoprostheses [ 20 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 52 , 77 , 91 , 92 , 93 ]. In our opinion, monitoring biofilm formation of ocular fluid S. aureus and S. epidermidis on cadaveric cornea is equally important because they are a major source of hospital-acquired infections and more importantly, corneal biofilms have been reported following experimental keratitis in mice [ 77 ], in patients with infectious crystalline keratopathy [ 94 , 95 , 96 ] or pterygium scleritis [ 97 ] and also in the absence of prosthetic material and in the absence of active corneal inflammation or infection [ 59 ].…”

“…Staphylococcus aureus and S. epidermidis are also the leading cause of infection of ocular implants such as intra-ocular lenses, Scleral buckles, Conjunctival plug, Lacrimal intubation devices, etc. [ 21 , 24 , 25 , 26 ].…”

Dentistry and Intensive Care Unit: A Brief Report

“…and S. aureus) on them. [11][12][13][14][15] Patients evaluated in this study slept with their dentures removable. Individuals who sleep with their dentures removable tend to have poor oral hygiene practices, high rates of microbial plaque on their tongues and dentures, oral candidiasis, and visit their dentists less often.…”

Effects of Brazilian green propolis glycolic solutions against bacterial biofilm on elastomers used in maxillofacial prostheses

“…The chemical immersion technique is essentially the method of choice for the cleaning of maxillofacial prostheses by careful rubbing of their internal surface (Filié Haddad et al, 2011;Guiotti et al, 2016;Paranhos et al, 2007). Although the chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) solution has been widely employed as an antimicrobial disinfectant (de Azevedo et al, 2021;Filié Haddad et al, 2011;Guiotti et al, 2016;Miranda et al, 2019;Moreno et al, 2020), possible structural damage to biomaterials has been observed with its use, such as roughness and microhardness as the main altered physical and mechanical properties of maxillofacial silicone elastomers (Moreno et al, 2013); however, divergent results have been reported elsewhere (Chamaria et al, 2019). In addition, Daro Brand® is a commercial antibacterial product used as an alternative for cleaning maxillofacial prostheses, but no studies have proved its effects as a disinfectant.…”