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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Moreno, Amália
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: dos Santos, Daniela Micheline [UNESP], de Moraes Melo Neto, Clóvis Lamartine [UNESP], de Melo Moreno, André Luiz, de Magalhães Bertoz, André Pinheiro [UNESP], Goiato, Marcelo Coelho [UNESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240116
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/206658
Resumo: 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). Therefore, EFF15 and CHX (0.5%, 2% and 4%) were effective in reducing Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus on acrylic surfaces. NES30 and OPF (30 and 6) are not recommended.
id UNSP_c5d97f6880fade29e7a7ea56adc311e7
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/206658
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling In vitro evaluation of the effect of different disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus formed on acrylic ocular prosthesesThe 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). Therefore, EFF15 and CHX (0.5%, 2% and 4%) were effective in reducing Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus on acrylic surfaces. NES30 and OPF (30 and 6) are not recommended.Department of Oral Surgery Pathology and Clinical Dentistry Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) School of DentistryDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of DentistryOral Oncology Center São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of DentistryBrazilian Institute of Northern Education (IBEN)Department of Pediatric and Social Dentistry São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of DentistryDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of DentistryOral Oncology Center São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of DentistryDepartment of Pediatric and Social Dentistry São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of DentistryUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Brazilian Institute of Northern Education (IBEN)Moreno, Amáliados Santos, Daniela Micheline [UNESP]de Moraes Melo Neto, Clóvis Lamartine [UNESP]de Melo Moreno, André Luizde Magalhães Bertoz, André Pinheiro [UNESP]Goiato, Marcelo Coelho [UNESP]2021-06-25T10:36:02Z2021-06-25T10:36:02Z2020-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240116PLoS ONE, v. 15, n. 10 October, 2020.1932-6203http://hdl.handle.net/11449/20665810.1371/journal.pone.02401162-s2.0-85092490262Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengPLoS ONEinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-04-11T20:16:33Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/206658Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-04-11T20:16:33Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv In vitro evaluation of the effect of different disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus formed on acrylic ocular prostheses
title In vitro evaluation of the effect of different disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus formed on acrylic ocular prostheses
spellingShingle In vitro evaluation of the effect of different disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus formed on acrylic ocular prostheses
Moreno, Amália
title_short In vitro evaluation of the effect of different disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus formed on acrylic ocular prostheses
title_full In vitro evaluation of the effect of different disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus formed on acrylic ocular prostheses
title_fullStr In vitro evaluation of the effect of different disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus formed on acrylic ocular prostheses
title_full_unstemmed In vitro evaluation of the effect of different disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus formed on acrylic ocular prostheses
title_sort In vitro evaluation of the effect of different disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus formed on acrylic ocular prostheses
author Moreno, Amália
author_facet Moreno, Amália
dos Santos, Daniela Micheline [UNESP]
de Moraes Melo Neto, Clóvis Lamartine [UNESP]
de Melo Moreno, André Luiz
de Magalhães Bertoz, André Pinheiro [UNESP]
Goiato, Marcelo Coelho [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 dos Santos, Daniela Micheline [UNESP]
de Moraes Melo Neto, Clóvis Lamartine [UNESP]
de Melo Moreno, André Luiz
de Magalhães Bertoz, André Pinheiro [UNESP]
Goiato, Marcelo Coelho [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Brazilian Institute of Northern Education (IBEN)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Moreno, Amália
dos Santos, Daniela Micheline [UNESP]
de Moraes Melo Neto, Clóvis Lamartine [UNESP]
de Melo Moreno, André Luiz
de Magalhães Bertoz, André Pinheiro [UNESP]
Goiato, Marcelo Coelho [UNESP]
description 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). Therefore, EFF15 and CHX (0.5%, 2% and 4%) were effective in reducing Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus on acrylic surfaces. NES30 and OPF (30 and 6) are not recommended.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-10-01
2021-06-25T10:36:02Z
2021-06-25T10:36:02Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240116
PLoS ONE, v. 15, n. 10 October, 2020.
1932-6203
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/206658
10.1371/journal.pone.0240116
2-s2.0-85092490262
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240116
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/206658
identifier_str_mv PLoS ONE, v. 15, n. 10 October, 2020.
1932-6203
10.1371/journal.pone.0240116
2-s2.0-85092490262
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv PLoS ONE
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799964861864607744