Antimicrobial efficiency of mouthrinses versus and in combination with different photodynamic therapies on periodontal pathogens in an experimental study

Background and ObjectiveIn the therapy of destructive periodontal disease, chemical antimicrobial agents and increasingly photodynamic therapy (PDT) play an important adjunctive role to standard mechanical anti-infective treatment procedures. However, both antiseptic methods have their shortcomings in terms of eliminating periodontal pathogens. The aim of the study was to compare the antibacterial efficacy of different antiseptic mouthrinses, of a conventional and a new, modified PDTplus as well as of the different antiseptic mouthrinses combined with either the conventional or the modified PDTplus against periopathogens. Material and MethodsSix representative periodontitis-associated bacterial strains were grown for 24 h under anaerobic conditions. After mixing the individual cell pellets they were exposed to 10 different antiseptic mouthrinse formulations: chlorhexidine (0.2%, 0.06%, CHX); CHX + cetylpyridinium chloride (each 0.05%); sodium hypochlorite (0.05%); polyhexanide (0.04%, PHMB1; 0.1%, PHMB2); octenidine dihydrochloride (0.1%); fluoride (250 ppm); essential oils; povidone iodine (10%); and saline (0.9%, NaCl) as control. Furthermore, the bacteria were treated with conventional PDT based on light-emitting diodes and a new modified photodisinfection combining photosensitizer with hydrogen peroxide to PDTplus also based on light-emitting diodes. In addition to the single treatments, a combined application of antiseptic exposure followed by use of PDT or PDTplus was performed. The microbial viability was characterized by analyzing colony growth and fluorescence-based vitality proportions. ResultsNearly all mouthrinses caused a statistically significant growth inhibition. The most effective antiseptics, CHX (0.2%), CHX/cetylpyridinium chloride and octenidine dihydrochloride, inhibited bacterial growth completely. Conventional PDT resulted in moderate reduction of colony growth. The modified PDTplus achieved maximum antimicrobial effect. The combination of antiseptic exposure and PDT against periopathogens predominantly increased antibacterial efficacy compared to the single applications. The mouthrinse containing essential oil seemed to interfere with PDT. ConclusionA combination therapy of preceding chemotherapeutical exposure and subsequent photodisinfection may be a more effective and promising antibacterial treatment than single applications of the antiseptic methods. The modified PDTplus using oxygen-enriched toluidine showed a superior antibacterial effect on periodontal pathogens to conventional PDT and to the majority of the investigated mouthrinses.