Background: Oral biofilms are the root cause of major oral diseases. As in vitro biofilms are not representative of the intraoral milieu, various devices have been manufactured over the years to develop Appliance Grown Oral Biofilm (AGOB). Objective: To review various intraoral appliances used to develop AGOB for microbiological analysis, and to judge the optimal means for such analyses. Design: Four databases (PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Medline) were searched by two independent reviewers, and articles featuring the key words 'device' OR 'splint' OR 'appliance'; 'Oral biofilm' OR 'dental plaque'; 'in vivo' OR 'in situ'; 'Microbiology' OR 'Bacteria' OR 'microbiome'; were included. The standard Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were adopted for data gathering. Results: Of the 517 articles which met the initial inclusion criteria, 24 were deemed eligible for review. The age of the AGOB, sampled at various intervals, ranged from 30 min to 28 days. The most commonly used microbiome analytical methods were fluorescence microscopy, total cell count using conventional, and molecular tools including Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) platforms. Conclusions: No uniformly superior method for collecting AGOB could be discerned. NGS platforms are preferable for AGOB analyses.
Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) is commonly used to arrest caries lesions, especially in early childhood caries. Recently, it was suggested that SDF can be combined with potassium iodide (KI) to minimize the discoloration of demineralized dentine associated with SDF application. However, the antibacterial efficacy of SDF alone or combined with KI on in-situ biofilm is unknown. Hence, we compared the anti-plaque biofilm efficacy of two different commercially available SDF solutions, with or without KI, using an in-situ biofilm, analysed using viability real-time PCR with propidium monoazide (PMA). Appliance-borne in-situ biofilm samples (n = 90) were grown for a period of 6 h in five healthy subjects who repeated the experiment on three separate occasions, using a validated, novel, intraoral device. The relative anti-biofilm efficacy of two SDF formulations; 38.0% Topamine (SDFT) and 31.3%, Riva Star (SDFR), KI alone, and KI in combination with SDFR (SDFR+KI) was compared. The experiments were performed by applying an optimized volume of the agents onto the biofilm for 1min, mimicking the standard clinical procedure. Afterwards the viability of the residual biofilm bacteria was quantified using viability real-time PCR with PMA, then the percentage of viable from total bacteria was calculated. Both SDF formulations (SDFT and SDFR) exhibited potent antibacterial activities against the in-situ biofilm; however, there was non-significant difference in their efficacy. KI alone did not demonstrate any antibacterial effect, and there was non-significant difference in the antibacterial efficacy of SDF alone compared to SDF with KI, (SDFT v SDFR/KI). Thus, we conclude that the antibacterial efficacy of SDF against plaque biofilms is not modulated by KI supplements. Viability real-time PCR with PMA was successfully used to analyze the viability of naturally grown oral biofilm; thus, the same method can be used to test the antimicrobial effect of other agents on oral biofilms in future research.