The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effects of Glucose and Fluoride on Competition and Metabolism within in vitro Dental Bacterial Communities and Biofilms
Abstract
Antimicrobial effects of fluoride in vivo remain contentious. Previous studies suggested that 1 m M NaF reduced acid production from glucose, and prevented the enrichment of bacteria associated with caries in a chemostat model. The present study examines the effects of a lower fluoride concentration (0.53 m M, 10 ppm NaF) in both biofilm and planktonic microbial communities. Nine oral species were grown at pH 7.0 and pulsed on 10 successive days with glucose; bacterial metabolism was allowed to reduce the pH for 6 h before being returned to neutrality, either in the presence or absence of NaF. In addition, 10-day-old mixed culture biofilms were overlaid with glucose, with or without NaF, and the pH change followed by microelectrode. After 10 days, chemostat pH dropped to ca. pH 4.5 following glucose pulses, and the community was dominated by Streptococcus mutans (rising from 4 to 23% of total CFU) and Veillonella dispar (16 to 73%). In comparison, after 10 days pulsing with glucose + fluoride, the final pH was significantly higher (ca. pH 4.9) (paired t test, p < 0.0001). The culture was predominated by V. dispar (70%) and Actinomyces naeslundii (13%), whereas S. mutans proportions were significantly lower (t test, p = 0.04), remaining <3% of the total flora, compared to the culture without fluoride. Biofilm pH fell to only pH 5.55 1 h after glucose/fluoride overlay, compared to 4.55 with glucose alone (paired t test, p < 0.000001). Analysis of the data suggests that fluoride exerts dual antimicrobial modes of action. Fluoride prevents enrichment of S. mutans by inhibiting critical metabolic processes (direct effect) and, in an inter-related way, by reducing environmental acidification (indirect effect) in biofilms.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Fluoride concentrations in biofilm treated with the greatest concentration used or in the culture medium were below 10 ppm, the minimum fluoride concentration to inhibit enolase.
“fluoride concentrations either in biofilm treated with the greater concentration used (Table 3) or in the culture medium (Fig 3B) were below 10 ppm, the minimum fluoride concentration to inhibit enolase [51].”
From Validation of a Cariogenic Biofilm Model to Evaluate the Effect of Fluoride on Enamel and Root Dentine Demineralization (2016) · cites this paper as [51]
Fluoride may have antimicrobial effects but it is concentration-dependent.
“Fluoride may have antimicrobial effects but it is concentration-dependent”
From Validation of a Cariogenic Biofilm Model to Evaluate the Effect of Fluoride on Enamel and Root Dentine Demineralization (2016) · cites this paper as [51]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 10.1159/000016487 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1146/annurev.micro.49.1.711 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Are dental diseases examples of ecological catastrophes?
Marsh, P. D. (2003) · Microbiology · doi:10.1099/mic.0.26082-0 · Cited by 1,256
Self-citationDental plaque as a biofilm and a microbial community—Implications for health and disease
Marsh, P. D. (2006) · BMC Oral Health · doi:10.1186/1472-6831-6-s1-s14 · Cited by 1,094
Self-citationMicrobiology of Dental Plaque Biofilms and Their Role in Oral Health and Caries
Marsh, P. D. (2010) · Dental Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.cden.2010.03.002 · Cited by 372
Self-citationUnderstanding dental caries as a non-communicable disease
Pitts, N. B., Twetman, S., Fisher, J., & Marsh, P. D. (2021) · British Dental Journal · doi:10.1038/s41415-021-3775-4 · Cited by 346
Self-citationToxicity of fluoride to microorganisms in biological wastewater treatment systems
Ochoa-Herrera, V., Banihani, Q., León, G., Khatri, C., Field, J. A., & Sierra-Alvarez, R. (2009) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2009.04.032 · Cited by 135
Fernández, C. E., Tenuta, L. M. A., & Cury, J. A. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146478 · Cited by 74
Erdem, A. P., Sepet, E., Kulekci, G., Trosola, S. C., & Guven, Y. (2012) · International Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.7150/ijms.3637 · Cited by 61
Calero, P., Gurdo, N., & Nikel, P. I. (2022) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/1462-2920.16110 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Bradshaw, D. J., Marsh, P. D., Hodgson, R. J., & Visser, J. M.
- Venue
- Caries Research
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 81-86
- ISSN
- 0008-6568
- 1421-976X
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review