The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Antibacterial Efficacy against Streptococcus mutans of Different Desensitizing Dentifrices: A Comparison In vitro Study

Mariela Romo, Lucy Chiong

Keywords : Antibacterial efficacy, Desensitizing dentifrices, In vitro study

Citation Information : Romo M, Chiong L. Antibacterial Efficacy against Streptococcus mutans of Different Desensitizing Dentifrices: A Comparison In vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (7):669-673.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3375

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 10-11-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: To evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of desensitizing dentifrices. Material and methods: An experimental, in vitro, longitudinal, analytical, and prospective study was carried out. Subsequently, the following groups were formed: Streptococcus mutans vs Vitis® Sensible. S. mutans vs Sensodyne® Repair and Protect. Also, S. mutans vs Colgate® Sensitive Pro-ReliefTM and S. mutans vs Colgate Total 12® at 100, 50, 25, and 12.5%. Each Petri dish was properly labeled with the letter corresponding to the toothpaste and was placed in the incubator for 24 hours at 37°C. A 0.12% chlorhexidine solution was used as a positive control and distilled water as a negative control. The manuscript was written following the checklist for reporting in vitro studies (CRIS) guidelines. Results: It was found that when comparing the inhibition halos of the desensitizing toothpaste against S. mutans, Colgate® Sensitive Pro-ReliefTM 100% paste had the highest efficacy at 24 and 48 hours with an average of 25.2 ± 1.0 and 23.5 ± 1.1 mm, respectively. On the other way, Sensodyne paste had no efficacy at any of its concentrations 100, 50, 25, and 12.5%. Finally, it was found that there were statistically significant differences between each of the groups evaluated with a p < 0.001. Conclusions: It was concluded that mainly the 100% pure concentrations of the desensitizing pastes had antibacterial efficacy against S. mutans. However, Sensodyne® Repair and Protect paste had no effect. Clinical significance: This research has clinical relevance because the use of desensitizing pastes is highly frequent. Therefore, it is necessary to know if these pastes offer an efficient antibacterial effect to control the main microorganisms of the oral cavity.

PDF Share
  1. Bossù M, Saccucci M, Salucci A, et al. Enamel remineralization and repair results of Biomimetic Hydroxyapatite toothpaste on deciduous teeth: An effective option to fluoride toothpaste. J Nanobiotechnol 2019;17(1):2–13. DOI: 10.1186/s12951-019-0454-6.
  2. Poggio C, Gulino C, Mirando M, et al. Protective effect of zinc-hydroxyapatite toothpastes on enamel erosion: An in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9(1):118–122. DOI: 10.4317/jced.53068.
  3. Lippert F. An introduction to toothpaste: Its purpose, history and ingredients. Monogr Oral Sci 2013;23:1–14. DOI: 10.1159/000350456.
  4. Meyer F, Enax J. Early childhood caries: Epidemiology, aetiology, and prevention. Int J Dent 2018;2018:1415873. DOI: 10.1155/2018/1415873.
  5. Arnold WH, Prange M, Naumova EA. Effectiveness of various toothpastes on dentine tubule occlusion. J Dent 2015;43(4):440–449. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.014.
  6. Camargo SEA, Milhan NVM, Saraiva FO, et al. Are desensitizing toothpastes equally biocompatible and effective against microorganisms? Braz Dent J 2017;28(5):604–611. DOI: 10.1590/0103-644 0201701413.
  7. Guven Y, Ustun N, Tuna EB, et al. Antimicrobial effect of newly formulated toothpastes and a mouthrinse on specific microorganisms: An in vitro Study. Eur J Dent 2019;13(2):172–177. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1695655.
  8. Randall JP, Seow WK, Walsh LJ. Antibacterial activity of fluoride compounds and herbal toothpastes on Streptococcus mutans: An in vitro study. Aust Dent J 2015;60(3):368–374. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12247.
  9. Monterubbianesi R, Sparabombe S, Tosco V, et al. Can desensitizing toothpastes also have an effect on gingival inflammation? A double-blind, three-treatment crossover clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(23):8927. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17238927.
  10. Poma-Castillo L, Espinoza-Poma M, Mauricio F, et al. Antifungal activity of ethanol-extracted Bixa orellana (L) (achiote) on Candida albicans, at six different concentrations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(10):1159–1163. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2672.
  11. Mayta-Tovalino F, Sedano-Balbin G, Romero-Tapia P, et al. Development of new experimental dentifrice of Peruvian Solanum tuberosum (tocosh) fermented by water stress: Antibacterial and cytotoxic activity. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(10):1206–1211. PMID: 31883258.
  12. Arce J, Palacios A, Alvítez-Temoche D, et al. Tensile strength of novel nonabsorbable PTFE (Teflon®) versus other suture materials: An in vitro study. Int J Dent 2019;2019:7419708. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals- 10024-2681.
  13. Meyer F, Amaechi BT, Fabritius HO, et al. Overview of calcium phosphates used in biomimetic oral Care. Open Dent J 2018;12:406–423. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601812010406.
  14. Rocamundi M, Lagonero A, Juncal AL, et al. Advantages and hazzards of the use of nanotechnology in toothpastes. Methodo 2018;3(3):67–72. DOI:10.22529/me.2018.3(3)04.
  15. Malic S, Emanuel C, Lewis MAO, et al. Antimicrobial activity of novel mouthrinses against planktonic cells and biofilms of pathogenic microorganisms. Microbiol Discov 2013;1:11. DOI: 10.7243/2052-6180-1-11.
  16. Zhang T, Wang Z, Hancock RE, et al. Treatment of oral biofilms by a D-enantiomeric peptide. PLoS ONE 2016;11(11):e0166997. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166997.
  17. Mayta-Tovalino F, Gamboa E, Sánchez R, et al. Development and formulation of the experimental dentifrice based on Passiflora mollissima (tumbo) with and without fluoride anion: Antibacterial activity on seven antimicrobial strains. Int J Dent 2019;2019:9056590. DOI: 10.1155/2019/9056590.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.