Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms--which stain is suitable?

BACKGROUND There is confusion over the definition of the term "viability state(s)" of microorganisms. "Viability staining" or "vital staining techniques" are used to distinguish live from dead bacteria. These stainings, first established on planctonic bacteria, may have serious shortcomings when applied to multispecies biofilms. Results of staining techniques should be compared with appropriate microbiological data. DISCUSSION Many terms describe "vitality states" of microorganisms, however, several of them are misleading. Authors define "viable" as "capable to grow". Accordingly, staining methods are substitutes, since no staining can prove viability.The reliability of a commercial "viability" staining assay (Molecular Probes) is discussed based on the corresponding product information sheet: (I) Staining principle; (II) Concentrations of bacteria; (III) Calculation of live/dead proportions in vitro. Results of the "viability" kit are dependent on the stains' concentration and on their relation to the number of bacteria in the test. Generally this staining system is not suitable for multispecies biofilms, thus incorrect statements have been published by users of this technique.To compare the results of the staining with bacterial parameters appropriate techniques should be selected. The assessment of Colony Forming Units is insufficient, rather the calculation of Plating Efficiency is necessary. Vital fluorescence staining with Fluorescein Diacetate and Ethidium Bromide seems to be the best proven and suitable method in biofilm research.Regarding the mutagenicity of staining components users should be aware that not only Ethidium Bromide might be harmful, but also a variety of other substances of which the toxicity and mutagenicity is not reported. SUMMARY - The nomenclature regarding "viability" and "vitality" should be used carefully.- The manual of the commercial "viability" kit itself points out that the kit is not suitable for natural multispecies biofilm research, as supported by an array of literature.- Results obtained with various stains are influenced by the relationship between bacterial counts and the amount of stain used in the test. Corresponding vitality data are prone to artificial shifting.- As microbiological parameter the Plating Efficiency should be used for comparison.- Ethidium Bromide is mutagenic. Researchers should be aware that alternative staining compounds may also be or even are mutagenic.

A randomized, controlled clinical trial on the clinical, microbiological, and staining effects of a novel 0.05% chlorhexidine/herbal extract and a 0.1% chlorhexidine mouthrinse adjunct to periodontal surgery

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine (CHX) rinsing after periodontal surgery is common. We assessed the clinical and microbiological effects of two CHX concentrations following periodontal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a randomized, controlled clinical trial, 45 subjects were assigned to 4 weeks rinsing with a 0.05 CHX/herbal extract combination (test) or a 0.1% CHX solution. Clinical and staining effects were studied. Subgingival bacteria were assessed using the DNA-DNA checkerboard. Statistics included parametric and non-parametric tests (p<0001 to declare significance at 80% power). RESULTS: At weeks 4 and 12, more staining was found in the control group (p<0.05 and p<0.001, respectively). A higher risk for staining was found in the control group (crude OR: 2.3:1, 95% CI: 1.3 to 4.4, p<0.01). The absolute staining reduction in the test group was 21.1% (9 5% CI: 9.4-32.8%). Probing pocket depth (PPD) decreases were significant (p<0.001) in both groups and similar (p=0.92). No rinse group differences in changes of bacterial counts for any species were found between baseline and week 12. CONCLUSIONS: The test CHX rinse resulted in less tooth staining. At the study endpoint, similar and high counts of periodontal pathogens were found.

Confocal imaging protocols for live/dead staining in three-dimensional carriers

In tissue engineering, a variety of methods are commonly used to evaluate survival of cells inside tissues or three-dimensional (3D) carriers. Among these methods confocal laser scanning microscopy opened accessibility of 3D tissue using live cell imaging into the tissue or 3D scaffolds. However, although this technique is ideally applied to 3D tissue or scaffolds with thickness up to several millimetres, this application is surprisingly rare and scans are often done on slices with thickness <20 μm. Here, we present novel protocols for the staining of 3D tissue (e.g. intervertebral disc tissue) and scaffolds, such as fibrin gels or alginate beads.