Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2025; 19(01): 090-095
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1786846
Original Article

Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 Inhibition of Biofilm Formation by Prevotella intermedia and Fusobacterium nucleatum Across Salivary pH: An In Vitro Study

Nissia Ananda 
1   Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
2   Staff of Dental Department, Universitas Indonesia Hospital, Jl. Prof Dr. Bahder Djohan, Universitas Indonesia, Pondok Cina, Beji, Depok, West Java, Indonesia
,
Vera Julia
2   Staff of Dental Department, Universitas Indonesia Hospital, Jl. Prof Dr. Bahder Djohan, Universitas Indonesia, Pondok Cina, Beji, Depok, West Java, Indonesia
3   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
,
Endang Winiati Bachtiar
4   Department of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by the Directorate of Research and Development UI (Hibah PUTI Pascasarjana 2023). Grant number: NKB-176/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2023.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives This study aims to investigate Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938's antibiofilm effects on Prevotella intermedia and Fusobacterium nucleatum, common causes of alveolar osteitis. It seeks topical alternatives to prevent this condition posttooth extraction. The secondary objective is to assess these effects under different pH conditions (pH 4.5 and pH 7), mimicking oral cavity saliva pH dynamics.

Materials and Methods Ethical approval was secured for the saliva collection process involving five healthy adult participants who had undergone wisdom tooth extraction. Saliva samples were diligently collected on the 7th day post-surgery. The unstimulated saliva underwent a series of treatments, including the addition of phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF), pH adjustments, centrifugation, and filtration. The pH levels were re-measured, and subsequent adjustments were made to achieve pH values of 4.5 or 7. Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938, with a concentration of 1×108 colony-forming units (CFU) per 5 drops, was utilized in the study. Biofilm testing involved incubating saliva samples with varying pH (4.5 or 7) alongside bacterial suspensions (Prevotella intermedia, Fusobacterium nucleatum, or a mixed species). The Interlac suspension was introduced, and plates were anaerobically incubated for 24 hours. Biofilm results were obtained using a spectrometer. The test is conducted in triplicate.

Statistical Analysis To scrutinize the impact of pH on biofilm development, the acquired data underwent a two-way ANOVA test in SPSS as part of the statistical analysis. A significance level of p<0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.

Results Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 significantly reduced biofilm formation across bacterial strains (p = 0.000). Statistical analysis indicated a significant impact of pH on biofilm development (p = 0.000) compared to no saliva samples, with higher formation observed under acidic conditions (pH 4.5). However, the pH levels of 4.5 and 7 did not result in significantly different bacterial biofilm formation (p = 0.529).

Conclusion This research highlights Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938's potency in inhibiting biofilm formation of Prevotella intermedia and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Salivary pH variations significantly influence biofilm development, emphasizing the need to consider pH when assessing probiotic effectiveness. Despite limitations in saliva sample sterilization, this study provides valuable insights into alternative approaches for preventing alveolar osteitis. Further research should explore clinical applications and refine sterilization methods for more accurate results.

Keywords

Limosilactobacillus reuteri - biofilm formation - salivary pH - Prevotella intermedia - Fusobacterium nucleatum - alveolar osteitis


Publication History

Article published online:
28 June 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Gowda GG, Viswanath D, Kumar M, Umashankar DN. Dry socket (alveolar osteitis): incidence, pathogenesis, prevention and management. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol 2013; 25 (03) 196-199
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Khalil W. New paradigm in explaining dry socket: case studies. J Adv Med Med Res 2022; 34 (20) 276-281
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sharma A, Aggarwal N, Rastogi S, Choudhury R, Tripathi S. Effectiveness of platelet-rich fibrin in the management of pain and delayed wound healing associated with established alveolar osteitis (dry socket). Eur J Dent 2017; 11 (04) 508-513
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 da Costa RR, Freitas RDS, da Cunha G, de Oliveira SD, Weber JBB. Antimicrobial and bone repair effects of boric acid in a rat model of dry socket (alveolar osteitis) following dental extraction. J Trace Elem Med Biol 2023; 76: 127118
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Garola F, Gilligan G, Panico R, Leonardi N, Piemonte E. Clinical management of alveolar osteitis. A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2021; 26 (06) e691-e702
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Aguilar-Durán L, Figueiredo R, Seminago R, Roig FJ, Llorens C, Valmaseda-Castellón E. A metagenomic study of patients with alveolar osteitis after tooth extraction. A preliminary case-control study. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23 (11) 4163-4172
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Riba-Terés N, Jorba-García A, Toledano-Serrabona J, Aguilar-Durán L, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Microbiota of alveolar osteitis after permanent tooth extractions: a systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021; 122 (02) 173-181
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Liu J, Liu Z, Huang J, Tao R. Effect of probiotics on gingival inflammation and oral microbiota: A meta-analysis. Oral Dis 2022; 28 (04) 1058-1067
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Alforaidi S, Bresin A, Almosa N, Lehrkinder A, Lingström P. Oral colonisation after the administration of drops containing Lactobacillus reuteri . Oral Health Prev Dent 2020; 18 (01) 1017-1023
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Widyarman AS, Theodorea CF. Novel indigenous probiotic lactobacillus reuteri strain produces anti-biofilm reuterin against pathogenic periodontal bacteria. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (01) 96-101
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Guli M, Winarsih S, Barlianto W, Illiandri O, Sumarno SP. Mechanism of Lactobacillus reuteri probiotic in increasing intestinal mucosal immune system. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2021; 9: 784-793
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Podunavac I, Hinić S, Kojić S. et al. Microfluidic approach for measurements of pH, O2, and CO2 in saliva. Sens Mater 2021; 33 (32) 1037-1050
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Abdella S, Abid F, Youssef SH. et al. pH and its applications in targeted drug delivery. Drug Discov Today 2023; 28 (01) 103414
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Gambon DL. Dental erosion in children: risk factors in daily life in the 21st century. [PhD-Thesis -Research and graduation internal, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam]. 2011
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Boisen G, Prgomet Z, Enggren G, Dahl H, Mkadmi C, Davies JR. Limosilactobacillus reuteri inhibits the acid tolerance response in oral bacteria. Biofilm 2023; 6 (June): 100136
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Wälivaara DÅ, Sjögren I, Gerasimcik N, Yucel-Lindberg T, Twetman S, Abrahamsson P. Effects of Lactobacillus reuteri-containing lozenges on healing after surgical removal of mandibular third molars: a randomised controlled trial. Benef Microbes 2019; 10 (06) 653-659
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Han N, Jia L, Su Y. et al. Lactobacillus reuteri extracts promoted wound healing via PI3K / AKT / β -catenin / TGF β 1 pathway. Stem Cell Res Ther 2019; 10 (243) 1-11
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Ramos E, Santamaría J, Santamaría G, Barbier L, Arteagoitia I. Do systemic antibiotics prevent dry socket and infection after third molar extraction? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 122 (04) 403-425
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Anderson CT, Anttila VJ, Arendrup MC, Bertagnolio S, Besselaar TG, Chakrabarti A. Antimicrobial Resistance: Global Report on Surveillance. France; 2014
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Matuq Badri S, Felemban EH, Alnajjar GK. et al. Effectiveness of probiotic lozenges and chlorhexidine mouthwash on plaque index, salivary pH, and Streptococcus mutans count among school children in Makkah, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Dent J 2021; 33 (07) 635-641
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Ananda N, Suniarti DF, Bachtiar EW. The antimicrobial effect of Limosilactobacillus reuteri as probiotic on oral bacteria: a scoping review. F1000 Res 2024; 12 (1495) 1495
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Iniesta M, Herrera D, Montero E. et al. Probiotic effects of orally administered Lactobacillus reuteri-containing tablets on the subgingival and salivary microbiota in patients with gingivitis. A randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39 (08) 736-744
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Vivekananda MR, Vandana KL, Bhat KG. Effect of the probiotic Lactobacilli reuteri (Prodentis) in the management of periodontal disease: a preliminary randomized clinical trial. J Oral Microbiol 2010; 2 (02) 1-10
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Laleman I, Pauwels M, Quirynen M, Teughels W. The usage of a Lactobacilli probiotic in the non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: a randomized pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020; 31 (01) 84-92
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Tada H, Masaki C, Tsuka S, Mukaibo T, Kondo Y, Hosokawa R. The effects of Lactobacillus reuteri probiotics combined with azithromycin on peri-implantitis: a randomized placebo-controlled study. J Prosthodont Res 2018; 62 (01) 89-96
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Hallström H, Lindgren S, Widén C, Renvert S, Twetman S. Probiotic supplements and debridement of peri-implant mucositis: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Odontol Scand 2016; 74 (01) 60-66
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Peña M, Barallat L, Vilarrasa J, Vicario M, Violant D, Nart J. Evaluation of the effect of probiotics in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: a triple-blind randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23 (04) 1673-1683
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Galofré M, Palao D, Vicario M, Nart J, Violant D. Clinical and microbiological evaluation of the effect of Lactobacillus reuteri in the treatment of mucositis and peri-implantitis: a triple-blind randomized clinical trial. J Periodontal Res 2018; 53 (03) 378-390
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Ruhl S, Berlenbach P, Langenfelder S. et al. Integrity of proteins in human saliva after sterilization by gamma irradiation. Appl Environ Microbiol 2011; 77 (03) 749-755
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar