PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 30, 2026Scientific Reports0 citationsOpen Access

A chlorine releasing solution as an alternative for dental biofilm control

PTPaula Yhorrana Viana TellesVOViviane de Cássia OliveiraRVRocio Geng Vivanco

Key Points

  • This research aims to evaluate the antibiofilm activity of a chlorine-releasing solution and its effects on enamel properties.
  • A mixed biofilm was formed on bovine enamel specimens evaluated for 48 hours.
  • Specimens were treated with chlorine-releasing solution, chlorhexidine, or phosphate-buffered saline.
  • Enamel properties like color stability, surface roughness, and microhardness were assessed over 30 days.
  • Chlorine-releasing solution significantly reduced microbial counts compared to phosphate-buffered saline (p < 0.05).
  • Surface roughness remained stable across treatments, except for chlorhexidine spray at 30 days (p < 0.05).
  • Chlorhexidine spray resulted in the highest microhardness reduction at 30 days (p < 0.05).

Abstract

To evaluate the antibiofilm activity of a chlorine-releasing solution (CRS) and its in vitro effects on enamel color stability, surface roughness, and microhardness. A mixed biofilm composed of Staphylococcus aureus, Candida albicans, and Streptococcus mutans was formed on standardized bovine enamel specimens (6 × 6 × 2 mm). After 48 h of maturation, the specimens were immersed for 5 min in CRS (Granudacyn, Mölnlycke Health Care), 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX, positive control), or phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, negative control). Antibiofilm activity was determined by colony-forming unit counts (CFU/mL). For enamel property evaluation, new specimens were treated once daily for 30 s using immersion or spray protocols. Color changes (ΔE₀₀), roughness (ΔRa), and microhardness (ΔKHN) were assessed at 1, 7, 15, and 30 days. CRS significantly reduced microbial counts compared with PBS and showed activity comparable to CHX. Surface roughness remained stable across treatments, except for CHX spray at 30 days (p < 0.05). CRS immersion resulted in lower microhardness values than PBS but did not differ from CHX. At 30 days, CHX spray produced the highest microhardness reduction (p < 0.05). No significant differences in color were observed among treatments. CRS demonstrated antimicrobial activity comparable to CHX without greater alterations in enamel surface properties under the tested conditions.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Telles et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f2f0991e5f7920c6386cd9https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-49642-5
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Effect of Nonthermal Atmospheric Plasma on S. mutans Biofilms2024 · 1 citations
  2. 2Effect of a cannabidiol-based mouthwash on dental enamel properties and biofilm control: an In situ study2026
  3. 3Herbal and Alcohol-Free Mouthwashes as Chlorhexidine Alternatives for Preventing Enamel Demineralization in Orthodontic Patients: An In Vitro Study2026 · 1 citations
  4. 4Electrolyzed saline as an alternative to chlorhexidine: Antimicrobial and biofilm volume outcomes in a 4‐day non‐brushing randomized controlled clinical trial2026 · 1 citations
  5. 5Comparative in vitro evaluation of staining of natural tooth enamel by chitosan, chlorhexidine, and chitosan-chlorhexidine mouthwashes2026 · 1 citations