Bacterial Flora in Dental Cavities after Traditional and Alternative Methods for Cavity Preparation

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Marina Darenskaya, Svetlana Tokmakova, Olga Bondarenko, Natalya Chechun, Alena Richter, Yuliya Lunitsyna, Evgeniy Mokrenko, Ivan Goncharov, Maria Suslikova, Larisa Kolesnikova, Isai Mikhalevich, Evgeniy Genich, Yulia Sinyova

 
International Journal of Biomedicine. 2022;12(3):412-416.
DOI: 10.21103/Article12(3)_OA12
Originally published September 5, 2022

Abstract: 

The aim of the study was to establish the qualitative and quantitative composition of microbial flora of dental cavities (DCs) after traditional and alternative preparation, including different methods of isolating the working field.
Material and Methods: Our study included 60 patients (mean age of 25.0±3.1 years) with DC Class 1 (Black's classification) without concomitant somatic pathology. To accomplish the study’s aim, 60 teeth were prepared. The main group (MG) consisted of 45 teeth prepared under absolute isolation with a rubber dam (RD). In the MG, 15 teeth were treated traditionally with a diamond bur with red and yellow markings (MG-1), 15 teeth were treated by ultrasound with a diamond tip (MG-2), and 15 teeth underwent hydrokinetic preparation (MG-3) with the Aquacut device (Velopex). In the comparison group (CG), which included 15 teeth, DCs were treated traditionally with a dental bur without the RD. The MG and CG were comparable in terms of the initial state of dental and microbiological status.
The study of the qualitative and quantitative composition of the DC microflora showed that all DCs contained pathogenic β-hemolytic streptococcus in the CG. At the same time, the maximum number of cases (80%) was moderately contaminated.. MG-1 and MG-2, as in the CG, were characterized by the predominance of β-hemolytic streptococcus at the bottom of the treated cavity. At the same time, the incidence of moderate contamination decreased by 4 times and single contamination increased in the cultures to 80%, compared to the CG (P=0.001). In MG-3, β-hemolytic streptococcus also dominated in the bottom of DCs after RD setting. The number of colonies was single (66.7% of cases) and moderate (33.3% of cases), indicating a significant increase in single and a decrease in moderate infestation, compared to the CG (P<0.01). Analysis of the quantitative characteristics of the microbial composition of the cavity floor after preparation of fissure caries showed the highest bacterial contamination in CG: β-hemolytic streptococcus predominated, averaging 251.20±2.5CFU/tampon. Lactobacillus and Neisseria spp. were detected much less frequently (3.16±1.6 and 1.99±1.3 CFU/tampon, respectively). There was a 10-fold decrease in the number of β-hemolytic hemolytic streptococcus cultures in MG-1 (25.12±2.0 CFU/tampon), MG-2 (25.12±2.0 CFU/tampon) and MG-3 (19.95±2.0 CFU/tampon), compared to the CG (P=0.000). The opportunistic microorganisms in the treatment of hard tissues by different methods (burr, ultrasound, hydrokinetic) under absolute isolation conditions were identified in almost equal numbers, with the Lactobacillus contamination being significantly lower in MG-1, MG-2, and MG-3 than in the CG (P<0.01).
Conclusion: After the preparation of DCs, a single presence of opportunistic microorganisms, moderate or single contamination with pathogenic bacteria, and absence of anaerobic bacteria were noted. Absolute isolation with RD provides a reduction of microbial infection regardless of the preparation method, and the maximum positive effect is DC preparation with dental burr and ultrasound.

Keywords: 
bacterial flora • tooth preparation • dental burr • ultrasound • hydrokinetic method • rubber dam
References: 
  1. Nyvad B, Takahashi N. Integrated hypothesis of dental caries and periodontal diseases. J Oral Microbiol. 2020 Jan 7;12(1):1710953. doi: 10.1080/20002297.2019.1710953. 
  2. Kunin AA, Shumilovich BR. [Advantages and disadvantages of modern types of preparation of hard tissues of teeth]. Journal of Practical and Theoretical Medicine. 2008;6(1):78-82. [In Russian].
  3. Rathi NV, Chandak MG, Mude GA. Comparative Evaluation of Dentinal Caries in Restored Cavity Prepared By Galvanic and Sintered Burs. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018 Jun;9(Suppl 1):S23-S27. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_801_17. 
  4. Conrads G. Pathophysiology of dental caries. In: Schwendicke F, Jo E. Frencken JoE, Innes N, editors. Caries excavation: Evolution of treating cavitated carious lesions.  Monographs in Oral Science; Basel: Karger. 2018;27:1-10. doi:10.1159/isbn.978-3-318-06369-1
  5. Laske M, Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Braspenning JCC, van der Sanden WJM, Huysmans MCDNJM, Bruers JJ. Minimally Invasive Intervention for Primary Caries Lesions: Are Dentists Implementing This Concept? Caries Res. 2019;53(2):204-216. doi: 10.1159/000490626. 
  6. Kunin AA, Shumilovich BR. [Modern aspects of odontopreparation]. Bulletin of the Institute of Dentistry. 2008;6:7-12.[In Russian]
  7. Liang Y, Deng Z, Dai X, Tian J, Zhao W. Micro-invasive interventions for managing non-cavitated proximal caries of different depths: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Nov;22(8):2675-2684. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2605-9. 
  8. DidenkoNM, VyazminAYa, MokrenkoEV, GazinskiyVV, SuslikovaMI, DarenskayaMA, AndreevaVB, AksnesD, GubinaMI. Relationship between the types of malocclusion and the localization of headaches in adults. International Journal of Biomedicine. 2021;11(2):197-200. doi:10.21103/Article11(2)_OA12
  9. Besegato JF, Melo PBG, Bernardi ACA, Bagnato VS, Rastelli ANS. Ultrasound device as a minimally invasive approach for caries dentin removal. Braz Dent J. 2022 Jan-Feb;33(1):57-67. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440202203878. 
  10. Cardoso M, Coelho A, Lima R, Amaro I, Paula A, Marto CM, Sousa J, Spagnuolo G, Marques Ferreira M, Carrilho E. Efficacy and Patient's Acceptance of Alternative Methods for Caries Removal-a Systematic Review. J Clin Med. 2020 Oct 23;9(11):3407. doi: 10.3390/jcm9113407. 
  11. Berczyńska D, Buczkowska-Radlińska J, Berczyński P, Gmerek A. Modern methods of hard tissue cavity preparation–literature overview. Pomeranian Journal of Life Sciences. 2019;65(1):76-82.
  12. Chen X, Daliri EB, Kim N, Kim JR, Yoo D, Oh DH. Microbial Etiology and Prevention of Dental Caries: Exploiting Natural Products to Inhibit Cariogenic Biofilms. Pathogens. 2020 Jul 14;9(7):569. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9070569.
  13. Zheng J, Wu Z, Niu K, Xie Y, Hu X, Fu J, Tian D, Fu K, Zhao B, Kong W, Sun C, Wu L. Microbiome of Deep Dentinal Caries from Reversible Pulpitis to Irreversible Pulpitis. J Endod. 2019 Mar;45(3):302-309.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.11.017. 
  14. Soleimani B, Goli H, Naranjian M, Mousavi SJ, Nahvi A. Comparison of Antimicrobial Activity of Fluoride Varnishes Against Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus: An In Vitro Study. Iranian Journal of Pediatrics. 2021;31(3): e111422.DOI: 10.5812/ijp.111422
  15. Al-Shahrani MA. Microbiology of dental caries: A literature review. Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research. 2019;9: 655-659.
  16. Sedghi L, DiMassa V, Harrington A, Lynch SV, Kapila YL. The oral microbiome: Role of key organisms and complex networks in oral health and disease. Periodontol 2000. 2021 Oct;87(1):107-131. doi: 10.1111/prd.12393.
  17. Deo PN, Deshmukh R. Oral microbiome: Unveiling the fundamentals. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2019 Jan-Apr;23(1):122-128. doi: 10.4103/jomfp.JOMFP_304_18. 
  18. Mira A. Oral Microbiome Studies: Potential Diagnostic and Therapeutic Implications. Adv Dent Res. 2018 Feb;29(1):71-77. doi: 10.1177/0022034517737024. 
  19. Belibasakis GN. Microbiological changes of the ageing oral cavity. Arch Oral Biol. 2018 Dec;96:230-232. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.10.001. 

Download Article
Received April 17, 2022.
Accepted July 6, 2022.
©2022 International Medical Research and Development Corporation.