Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Effect of Twice-Daily Blue Light Treatment on Matrix-Rich Biofilm Development

  • Denise Lins de Sousa,

    Affiliation Department of Dental Clinics, School of Pharmacy, Dentistry and Nursing, Federal University of Ceara, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil

  • Ramille Araújo Lima,

    Affiliation Department of Dental Clinics, School of Pharmacy, Dentistry and Nursing, Federal University of Ceara, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil

  • Iriana Carla Zanin,

    Affiliation Department of Dental Clinics, School of Pharmacy, Dentistry and Nursing, Federal University of Ceara, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil

  • Marlise I. Klein,

    Affiliation Department of Biomaterials, State University of São Paulo, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil

  • Malvin N. Janal,

    Affiliation Department of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, College of Dentistry, New York University, NYU, New York, United States of America

  • Simone Duarte

    sduarte@nyu.edu

    Affiliation Department of Basic Science and Craniofacial Biology, College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, United States of America

Abstract

Background

The use of blue light has been proposed as a direct means of affecting local bacterial infections, however the use of blue light without a photosensitizer to prevent the biofilm development has not yet been explored. The aim of this study was to determine how the twice-daily treatment with blue light affects the development and composition of a matrix-rich biofilm.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Biofilms of Streptococcus mutans UA159 were formed on saliva-coated hydroxyapatite discs for 5 days. The biofilms were exposed twice-daily to non-coherent blue light (LumaCare; 420 nm) without a photosensitizer. The distance between the light and the sample was 1.0 cm; energy density of 72 J cm-2; and exposure time of 12 min 56 s. Positive and negative controls were twice-daily 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) and 0.89% NaCl, respectively. Biofilms were analyzed for bacterial viability, dry-weight, and extra (EPS-insoluble and soluble) and intracellular (IPS) polysaccharides. Variable pressure scanning electron microscopy and confocal scanning laser microscopy were used to check biofilm morphology and bacterial viability, respectively. When biofilms were exposed to twice-daily blue light, EPS-insoluble was reduced significantly more than in either control group (CHX and 0.89% NaCl). Bacterial viability and dry weight were also reduced relative to the negative control (0.89% NaCl) when the biofilms were treated with twice-daily blue light. Different morphology was also visible when the biofilms were treated with blue light.

Conclusions

Twice-daily treatment with blue light without a photosensitizer is a promising mechanism for the inhibition of matrix-rich biofilm development.

Introduction

Streptococcus mutans is known as the major etiological agent in dental caries [1] and it has a great influence on the development and composition of pathogenic biofilms mainly due to its ability to synthesize extracellular polysaccharides (EPS) [2]. EPS play a major role in the pathogenesis of dental caries, by promoting bacterial accumulation to the tooth surface and influencing the physical and biochemical properties of biofilms [3]. Bacteria embedded in biofilm are significantly less sensitive to different antibacterial agents than free-floating planktonic bacterial cells. It is assumed that bacteria in biofilm express genes that allow for better acclimation to the biofilm microenvironment and contribute to limited diffusion of the bacteria through the biofilm [4,5]. The analyses of EPS matrix formation could advance the current understanding of the development process and structural organization of oral biofilms, which would be essential for designing novel and effective antibiofilm therapies [6].

The photodynamic antimicrobial chemotherapy (PACT) has been indicated as an alternative to conventional antimicrobial therapy to kill oral bacteria [5,7,8]. It is based on the use of extrinsic photosensitizers (PS), light-absorbing molecules that initiate a photochemical reaction when exposed to light of a specific wavelength. This photochemistry process leads to reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, which may cause irreversible damage to essential bacterial cell compounds and change cell metabolism resulting in bacterial death [9]. The greatest PACT limitation is the challenge for the PS to penetrate through the depths of the biofilm. The phototherapy with blue light (400–500 nm wavelength) without PS seems to be a promising alternative for PACT since it exceeds this challenge. Its antimicrobial mechanism is similar to PACT, however, the bacterial killing seems to involve the activation of endogenous PS in bacteria, such as flavins and cytochromes, that may lead to production of ROS [10].

The antimicrobial effect of blue light alone has been demonstrated in planktonic cultures [1013]; however, its effect in biofilms has been poorly investigated [12,14]. The blue light’s mechanism of action on the S. mutans biofilm and how it affects its biofilm structural organization has still not been found. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine how the daily treatment with blue light affects the development and composition of a matrix-rich S. mutans biofilm.

Materials and Methods

Light Sources

The light source used in this research was a non-coherent, commercially available, blue light (LumaCare Model LC-122, Medical Group, Newport Beach, CA) with 420 nm wavelength, spot size of 113.1 mm2, and fixed output power of 95.5 mW cm-2.

Inoculum and biofilm model

Streptococcus mutans UA159 (ATCC 700610) was obtained from single colonies isolated on agar plates, inoculated in tryptone yeast-extract broth containing 1% (w/v) glucose and incubated for 18–24 h at 37°C under microaerophilic conditions (5% of CO2). Biofilms of S. mutans UA159 were formed on saliva-coated hydroxyapatite discs (HA) (0.635 cm2) placed in 2 mL of medium containing 1% sucrose, in 24-well cell culture plates, at 37°C, 5% CO2, during 5 days. Medium was replaced once daily [15]. Saliva-coated discs were prepared through incubation with de-identified clarified human whole saliva for 1 hour at 37°C in a 3-D rotator (LabLine—Thermo scientific, USA) as previously described [15]. Adsorption buffer (50 mM KCl, 1.0 mM KPO4, 1.0 mM CaCl, 0.1 mM MgCl2 –pH = 6.5–1:1) was added to the saliva as well as phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF– 1:1000). The solution was clarified by centrifugation at 8,500 rpm for 10 minutes at 4°C, filtered with a 0.22 μm pore size filter (Stericup, Millipore, USA) and immediately used [15]. As no identifying information about the donor was collected, this research does not meet the definition of human subjects 45 CFR 46.102(f) and does not require IRB oversight. The biofilms were grown in tryptone yeast-extract broth containing 1% (w/v) sucrose (2 mL/well) and were kept undisturbed for 24 h to allow initial biofilm formation. The culture medium was replaced once daily.

Exposure of the biofilm to blue light

After initial biofilm formation, the biofilm was exposed to non-coherent blue light [16] twice daily (10 a.m. and 4 p.m.) until the fifth day of the experimental period. The distance between the light source tip and the exposed sample was 1.0 cm and the parameters adopted were energy density of 72 J cm-2 and time exposure of 12 min 56 s. Positive and negative control groups were treated twice-daily with 0.12% chlorhexidine—CHX (1min) and 0.89% NaCl (1min), respectively.

Biofilm analysis

At the end of the experimental period, the biofilms were dip-washed three times, placed in 5 ml sterile saline solution, and the hydroxyapatite surfaces were gently scraped with a sterile spatula to harvest adherent cells. The removed biofilms were subjected to sonication using three 15-s pulses at an output of 7 W (Fisher Scientific, Sonic Dismembrator model 100; USA). The homogenized suspension was used for dry weight, bacterial viability (colony forming units—CFU mg-1 of biofilm dry weight), and polysaccharide analyses (EPS-soluble, EPS-insoluble and intracellular polysaccharides—IPS) as previously described [17].

Dry weight

For the dry weight determination, three volumes of cold ethanol (-20°C) were added to 1 ml biofilm suspension, and the resulting precipitate was centrifuged (10,000 g for 10 min at 4°C). The supernatant was discarded, and the pellet was washed with cold ethanol, and then lyophilized and weighed [17].

Bacterial viability

An aliquot (0.1 mL) of the homogenized suspension was serially diluted (1:10, 1:100, 1:1000, 1:10000, 1:100000, 1:1000000) and plated on blood agar. The plates were incubated in 5% CO2 at 37°C for 48 h, and then the number of CFU mg-1 of biofilm dry weight were determined [15].

Polysaccharide analyses

Soluble and insoluble extracellular polysaccharides (EPS-soluble and EPS-insoluble, respectively), and intracellular polysaccharides (IPS) were analyzed as described previously [17]. Briefly, the polysaccharide content was expressed per mg of polysaccharide by dry weight of total biofilm. Briefly, an aliquot (3.9 ml) of the suspension was sonicated for 30 s pulses at an output of 7 W and centrifuged at 10,000 g for 10 min at 4°C. The supernatant was collected and the biofilm pellet was resuspended and washed in 5 ml of milli-Q water; this procedure was repeated three times. The supernatant was used for the EPS-soluble assay and biofilm pellet was used for the EPS-insoluble and IPS assays. All of the supernatants were pooled and three volumes of cold ethanol were added, and the resulting precipitate was collected by centrifugation and resuspended in 5 ml Milli-Q water; the total amount of carbohydrate was determined by the phenol—sulfuric acid method [18]. The EPS-insoluble was extracted using 1 N NaOH (1 mg biofilm dry weight/0.3 ml of 1 N NaOH) under agitation for 1 h 10 min at 37°C. The supernatant was collected by centrifugation, and the precipitate was resuspended again in 1 N NaOH; this procedure was repeated three times. The total amount of carbohydrate was determined by phenol—sulfuric acid colorimetric method [18]. The IPS were extracted with hot 5.3 M KOH (0.8 mg of biofilm dry weight/ml KOH) and 5.3 M HCl (0.8 mg of biofilm dry weight/ml HCl), and quantified using 0.2% I2/2% KI solution and 1 M Phosphate Buffer (pH 7.0) [19].

Variable pressure scanning electron microscopy (VPSEM)

The HA discs were transferred to glass slides, biofilms upwards, and placed on the VPSEM [Zeiss EVO 50 (Carl Zeiss Microscopy, LLC, Thornwood, NY)] chamber. The images were captured at 100 Pa and 15.00 Kv and working distance was of 7.5 mm [20].

Confocal scanning laser microscope (CSLM)

The organization of the live and dead bacteria on the biofilm surface was examined by confocal scanning laser microscope. Leica TCS SP5 microscope (Leica Lasertechnik GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany) with a HCX APOL U-V-I 40X/0.8-numerical-aperture water immersion objective was used. The biofilms treated with blue light and control samples were stained with a live/dead BacLight bacterial viability kit (Molecular Probes. Invitrogen, Eugene, Oregon. USA). The stains were prepared in accordance with the manufacturer. The microplates were incubated at room temperature in the dark for 15 min and examined under a CSLM [21]. The bacterial biomass (μm3/μm2) was quantified using COMSTAT [22]

Statistical analyses

Prior to analysis, assumptions of equality of variances and normal distribution of errors were checked. As the between group variances were heterogeneous, data were rank transformed prior to analysis with a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed factor of group and a random intercept. When significant differences were detected, the groups were compared using t-tests based on the pooled standard error. IBM SPSS version 21 (IBM, Inc., Armonk, NY) was used to perform the analyses. The confidence interval was set at 95%.

Results

Fig 1 shows that twice-daily blue light exposure produced intermediate levels of S. mutans biofilm weight; less than the negative control group treated with 0.89% NaCl (p< 0.05), but more than the positive control group treated with CHX (p< 0.05). CFU counts were reduced only in the positive control group treated with CHX (p< 0.05).

thumbnail
Fig 1. CFU count and dry weight in S. mutans biofilm.

CFU count and dry weight in the S. mutans biofilm after the twice-daily blue light treatment compared with twice daily treatment with 0.12% Chlorhexidine (positive control) and twice-daily treatment with 0.89% NaCl (negative control). Data represent the mean values and error bars represent standard deviations. Values marked by the different letters are significantly different from each other (p < 0.05).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131941.g001

Fig 2 shows that twice-daily blue light exposure produced a larger reduction of EPS-insoluble than in either control group, the positive treated with CHX (p< 0.05) and negative treated with 0.89% NaCl. EPS-soluble levels were unaffected by any treatment and IPS were reduced only in the group treated with CHX (p< 0.05).

thumbnail
Fig 2. The content of EPS-soluble, EPS-insoluble and IPS in S. mutans biofilm.

The content of soluble and insoluble extracellular polysaccharides (EPS-soluble and EPS-insoluble, respectively), and of intracellular polysaccharides (IPS) in S. mutans biofilm (expressed in μg/mg of biofilm) after the twice-daily blue light treatment compared with twice daily treatment with 0.12% Chlorhexidine (positive control) and twice-daily treatment with 0.89% NaCl (negative control). Data represent the mean values and error bars represent standard deviations. Values marked by the different letters are significantly different from each other (p < 0.05).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131941.g002

The VPSEM images illustrate the effects of blue light on the morphology and structure on S. mutans biofilm. The exposure to blue light caused a reduction in biofilm development with a significant decrease of EPS production, which it is confirmed by the images, as presented in Fig 3. There was a visual difference between the blue light group (Fig 3A) and the control groups (Fig 3B and 3C).

thumbnail
Fig 3. Morphology and structure of S. mutans biofilms imaged by VPSEM.

VPSEM images are showing the morphology and structure of S. mutans biofilm after the twice-daily blue light treatment compared with positive and negative controls [Field width of 1.0 mm]. A = Biofilm after the twice daily blue light treatment; B = Biofilm after treatment with 0.12% chlorhexidine (positive control); C = Biofilm after treatment with 0.89% NaCl (negative control).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131941.g003

Confocal scanning laser microscopy (CSLM) representative images of bacteria in biofilms after twice-daily blue light exposure are shown in Fig 4. Multidimensional imaging of live (green) and dead (red) bacteria can be observed at different depths of S. mutans biofilm. The orthogonal view of biofilms showed that the biofilms treated twice-daily with blue light during their development are about 2-fold smaller than the controls. The total biomass of confocal images calculated by COMSTAT analysis confirm that the treatment with blue light is effective.

thumbnail
Fig 4. Viability and spatial arrangement in the S. mutans biofilms showed by confocal laser scanning microscopy.

Five (5) day-old biofilms were stained with BacLight LIVE/DEAD and processed for CSLM. (A) Biofilm after the twice-daily blue light treatment during 5 days. (B) Biofilm after twice-daily treatment with 0.12% Chlorhexidine (positive control). (C) Biofilm after twice-daily treatment with 0.89% NaCl (negative control). (1) Red cells are considered dead and green cells are alive. (2) Overlap of live and dead stacks. (3) Orthogonal view of the overlap of live and dead stacks; dots line represents the interface biofilm/ HA substrate. (4) Representative three-dimensional images of the structural organization of the biofilms: rendered images of the outer layers of biofilms. The total bacterial biomasses calculated by COMSTAT are shown.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131941.g004

Discussion

Light is an essential environmental cue for various organisms [23] Light is the major source of energy in the biosphere, and an essential signal that controls growth, development, and behavior of many different physiological mechanisms in most organisms. Long-term experience with phototherapy for the treatment of jaundice, cancer, and dermatological conditions has demonstrated its safety as well as its effectiveness [24]. A common example of the use of light as an antimicrobial is the PACT, which employs the combination of visible light of specific wavelengths and light-absorbing photosensitizers. Like PACT, blue light has emerged as a safe, low cost and effective antimicrobial therapy with little risk of antibiotic resistance [23].

Even though the use of PACT as an antimicrobial therapy has been suggested as an alternative method for oral biofilm treatment [9,16,2528], this method has several limitations described in the literature. In addition to the non-selective antimicrobial characteristics of PACT, the photosensitizers have difficulty penetrating to the depths of the biofilm, resulting in less effectiveness on bacteria in biofilms than on bacteria in the planktonic phase [29].

The present study demonstrates that twice-daily blue light treatment, without a photosensitizer, applied twice-daily during S. mutans biofilm development remarkably inhibited the production of EPS-insoluble, which are responsible for the scaffold of the extracellular biofilm matrix. By reducing EPS- insoluble, blue light prevented biofilm development, with a minimal antimicrobial effect. In fact, it inhibited EPS-insoluble more effectively than the twice-daily application of the ‘gold-standard’ 0.12% CHX. Although there are more dynamic multispecies biofilm models that have been developed to facilitate investigation of antimicrobial agents in relation to the bacterial interactions [30,31], we have used an S. mutans model, a well-established model, to prove our concept. This model is ideal to study the polysaccharide matrix, the synthesis of extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) on surfaces, and the assembly of an insoluble matrix, all of which are critical for the existence of cariogenic bofilms [32]. S. mutans does not always dominate within dental plaque, but it is recognized that glucosyltransferases (Gtfs) from S. mutans play critical roles in the development of virulent dental plaque. These Gtf genes, among other functions, are responsible for producing the soluble and insoluble polysaccharides matrix [2]. As is reported in a series of studies, data collected in vitro using a model similar to S. mutans [21,33] correlates well with the data found in the in situ study [34].

Previous studies have demonstrated the cytotoxic effects of blue light [35]. Blue light wavelengths (400–500 nm) commonly used in dentistry for polymerization of composite resin restorations has been proposed as a direct means of affecting local bacterial infections [4,10,36]. Our results demonstrate a significant effect of this wavelength of blue light without a PS on S. mutans biofilms. Other studies have observed the bactericidal effect of blue light therapy on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [37,38], Staphylococcus aureus [13], Escherichia coli [13], Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum [10]. Paschoal et al. [16] observed a complete inactivation of S. mutans in planktonic culture using the same light source and energy density, though a single application of blue light combined with curcumin as a photosensitizer was used at the end of the experimental period. It is well known that bacteria in biofilm are less sensitive to antibacterial agents than planktonic bacteria. Moreover, in the same study, a single does of blue light without PS, did not kill S. mutans [16]. Similar results were found by other authors [39], who actually state that a higher energy density of blue light is necessary to kill periodontal pathogens in planktonic cultures than in biofilm.

The extracellular polysaccharide matrices produced by S. mutans have been identified as the main factor responsible for the partial effectiveness of PACT. In the present study, daily exposure of biofilm to blue light decreased the levels of EPS-soluble when compared to the negative control. It has been established that the EPS-soluble may be readily digested and used as a reserve source of energy and contribute in part at least to the low pH values observed in cariogenic plaque [2,3]. On the other hand, EPS-insoluble levels produced under blue light treatment were not only significantly lower than those seen in the negative control group, but also lower than those seen with twice-daily treatment with the ‘gold-standard’ CHX. The EPS-insoluble plays a significant role on S. mutans adhesion and accumulation on the tooth surface [2]. In addition, it potentially changes the biofilm structure, resulting in increased porosity [40], which allows fermentable substrates to diffuse and to be metabolized in the deepest parts of the biofilm [41]. According to a previous study [6], the formation of the specific EPS domains could be explained by the presence of enzymatically active Gtfs, in which gtfC has greatest affinity for HA discs whereas gtfB binds preferentially to bacterial surfaces [42]. Exposure of S. mutans to blue light might indicate that there is a decreased expression of gtfs, considering a significantly reduced biomass and bacterial aggregates and more disturbances in the development and architecture of the S. mutans biofilm. This hypothesis is under investigation.

According to Dai [12], blue light can be sensed by numerous bacteria and can induce physiological responses elicited by the blue light receptors; as a result, blue light can regulate bacterial motility, suppress biofilm development, and potentiate light inactivation of bacteria. According to Gomelsky [31], there are three different classes of blue-light receptors in the bacteria: light, oxygen, and voltage (LOV) domains (flavins), blue light photoreceptor (BLUF) domains (flavins), among others. These receptors are linked to GGDEF and EAL protein domains, which are involved in synthesis and hydrolysis, respectively, of cyclic di-GMP (c-di-GMP)–a ubiquitous second messenger specific to bacteria. The c-di-GMP has been shown to inhibit flagella-based motility and to stimulate synthesis and/or excretion of biofilm matrix components. GGDEF and EAL domains are also involved in light-dependent regulation of biofilms and motility, inducing biofilm inhibition [43].

To determine the EPS matrix morphology of S. mutans biofilms with respect to topography, we used VPSEM to accurately image the EPS matrix [20]. In our study, the S. mutans biofilm topography was visibly decreased after blue light irradiation, in both CSLM and VPSEM images. This result suggests that blue light might have promoted disorganization and disaggregation of the microorganisms in the biofilm, inhibiting their growth and metabolism, consistent with other studies of the effect of blue light on the metabolism and viability of S. mutans in biofilm [4,14]. It is important to note that the main mechanism by which blue light reduce the biofilm development is by inhibiting the polysaccharide matrix formation, whereas CLSM gives us information regarding bacterial biomass.

Furthermore, according to Feuerstein [5], absorbed light at different wavelengths inhibits bacterial growth by two main mechanisms: one photochemical and one photothermal. The photochemical mechanism is based on the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). It was considered that in the absence of exogenous photosensitizers, visible light primarily affects porphyrin-containing black-pigmented oral bacteria, such as Porphyromonas gingivalis. Non-coherent blue-light sources such as the halogen lamp, LED and the plasma arc provide a phototoxic effect, mainly on planktonic cultures of the Gram-negative bacteria Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum associated with periodontal diseases [36]. However, doses of blue light must be at least seven to ten times higher in order to kill Gram-positive S. mutans and Enterococcus faecalis, demonstrating a minimal antimicrobial effect against these two species [36]. Light regulates the production of EPS in R. leguminosarum biofilms, and LOV-domain histidine kinase (LOV-HK), suggesting that a light sensor is involved in this process [44]. For another soil bacteria, Caulobacter crescentus, blue light has also been associated with cell-cell and cell-surface attachment [45], suggesting that blue light helps regulate the bacterial surface. In contrast to some soil bacteria, it is unclear how blue light specifically affects the physiology of S. mutans and by which mechanism(s). The wavelengths of blue light are highly absorbed by endogenous bacterial photosensitizers such as flavins and cytochromes, resulting in a phototoxic effect on the bacteria, mediated by ROS formation. Hence, the damaged cells may became more vulnerable to oxygen in the air when re-organizing into the new biofilm; thus, this effect appeared mostly in the outer layers [46].

The energy density utilized in the present study was based on a pilot study conducted in our laboratory (data not published). To our knowledge, this is the first report of twice-daily use of blue light to prevent oral biofilm development. This exposure time prevented S. mutans biofilm development by reducing the production of EPS-insoluble. Future study is needed to establish the parameters of blue light exposure that minimizes polysaccharide while remaining non-toxic to the oral tissues.

Therefore, we conclude that twice-daily treatment prevented the S. mutans in vitro biofilm matrix development, being more effective in reducing the production of EPS-insoluble than the ‘gold-standard’ anti-plaque 0.12% chlorhexidine. This leads us to believe blue light is a promising therapeutic approach for matrix-rich biofilm prevention, such as the cariogenic biofilm, by interfering with one of its most relevant virulence factors: the extracellular polysaccharide matrix. This work generates new hypotheses, and may have importance beyond the oral cavity, as polysaccharide matrices are present in all medically important biofilms.

Acknowledgments

We thank Meera Divya Rathi for reviewing the manuscript, and Yan Deng for confocal scanning laser microscope images. This research was supported by CAPES Foundation from whom the first and second authors received a scholarship (Process 18494-12-9 and 7715-13-7, respectively).

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: DLS RAL ICZ MNJ MIK SD. Performed the experiments: DLS RAL MIK. Analyzed the data: DLS RAL ICZ MNJ MIK SD. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MNJ MIK SD. Wrote the paper: DLS RAL ICZ MNJ MIK SD.

References

  1. 1. Bowen WH (1999) Wither or whither caries research? Caries Res 33: 1–3. pmid:9831774
  2. 2. Bowen WH, Koo H (2011) Biology of Streptococcus mutans-derived glucosyltransferases: role in extracellular matrix formation of cariogenic biofilms. Caries Res 45: 69–86.
  3. 3. Paes Leme AF, Koo H, Bellato CM, Bedi G, Cury JA (2006) The role of sucrose in cariogenic dental biofilm formation—new insight. J Dent Res 85: 878–887. pmid:16998125
  4. 4. Steinberg D, Moreinos D, Featherstone J, Shemesh M, Feuerstein O (2008) Genetic and physiological effects of noncoherent visible light combined with hydrogen peroxide on Streptococcus mutans in biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52: 2626–2631. pmid:18316516
  5. 5. Feuerstein O (2012) Light therapy: complementary antibacterial treatment of oral biofilm. Adv Dent Res 24: 103–107. pmid:22899690
  6. 6. Xiao J, Koo H (2010) Structural organization and dynamics of exopolysaccharide matrix and microcolonies formation by Streptococcus mutans in biofilms. J Appl Microbiol 108: 2103–2113. pmid:19941630
  7. 7. Hamblin MR, Hasan T (2004) Photodynamic therapy: a new antimicrobial approach to infectious disease? Photochem Photobiol Sci 3: 436–450. pmid:15122361
  8. 8. Romling U, Balsalobre C (2012) Biofilm infections, their resilience to therapy and innovative treatment strategies. J Intern Med 272: 541–561. pmid:23025745
  9. 9. Dougherty TJ, Gomer CJ, Henderson BW, Jori G, Kessel D, Korbelik M, et al. (1998) Photodynamic therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 90: 889–905. pmid:9637138
  10. 10. Feuerstein O, Ginsburg I, Dayan E, Veler D, Weiss EI (2005) Mechanism of visible light phototoxicity on Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Photochem Photobiol 81: 1186–1189. pmid:15960594
  11. 11. Guffey JS, Wilborn J (2006) In vitro bactericidal effects of 405-nm and 470-nm blue light. Photomed Laser Surg 24: 684–688. pmid:17199466
  12. 12. Dai T, Gupta A, Murray CK, Vrahas MS, Tegos GP, Hamblin MR (2012) Blue light for infectious diseases: Propionibacterium acnes, Helicobacter pylori, and beyond? Drug Resist Updat 15: 223–236. pmid:22846406
  13. 13. Kim S, Kim J, Lim W, Jeon S, Kim O, Koh JT, et al. (2013) In vitro bactericidal effects of 625, 525, and 425 nm wavelength (red, green, and blue) light-emitting diode irradiation. Photomed Laser Surg 31: 554–562. pmid:24138193
  14. 14. Chebath-Taub D, Steinberg D, Featherstone JD, Feuerstein O (2012) Influence of blue light on Streptococcus mutans re-organization in biofilm. J Photochem Photobiol B 116: 75–78. pmid:22982208
  15. 15. Duarte S, Gregoire S, Singh AP, Vorsa N, Schaich K, Bowen WH, et al. (2006) Inhibitory effects of cranberry polyphenols on formation and acidogenicity of Streptococcus mutans biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Lett 257: 50–56. pmid:16553831
  16. 16. Paschoal MA, Lin M, Santos-Pinto L, Duarte S (2013) Photodynamic antimicrobial chemotherapy on Streptococcus mutans using curcumin and toluidine blue activated by a novel LED device. Lasers Med Sci.
  17. 17. Duarte S, Rosalen PL, Hayacibara MF, Cury JA, Bowen WH, Marquis RE, et al. (2006) The influence of a novel propolis on mutans streptococci biofilms and caries development in rats. Arch Oral Biol 51: 15–22. pmid:16054589
  18. 18. Dubois M, Gilles K, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA, Smith F (1951) A colorimetric method for the determination of sugars. Nature 168: 167.
  19. 19. DiPersio JR, Mattingly SJ, Higgins ML, Shockman GD (1974) Measurement of intracellular iodophilic polysaccharide in two cariogenic strains of Streptococcus mutans by cytochemical and chemical methods. Infect Immun 10: 597–604. pmid:4139118
  20. 20. Weber K, Delben J, Bromage TG, Duarte S (2014) Comparison of SEM and VPSEM imaging techniques with respect to Streptococcus mutans biofilm topography. FEMS Microbiol Lett 350: 175–179. pmid:24261820
  21. 21. Klein MI, Duarte S, Xiao J, Mitra S, Foster TH, Koo H (2009) Structural and molecular basis of the role of starch and sucrose in Streptococcus mutans biofilm development. Appl Environ Microbiol 75: 837–841. pmid:19028906
  22. 22. Heydorn A, Nielsen AT, Hentzer M, Sternberg C, Givskov M, Ersbøll BK, et al. (2000) Quantification of biofilm structures by the novel computer program COMSTAT. Microbiology 146 (Pt 10): 2395–2407. pmid:11021916
  23. 23. Dai T, Gupta A, Huang YY, Yin R, Murray CK, Vrahas MS, et al. (2013) Blue light rescues mice from potentially fatal Pseudomonas aeruginosa burn infection: efficacy, safety, and mechanism of action. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57: 1238–1245. pmid:23262998
  24. 24. Tan KL (1991) Phototherapy for neonatal jaundice. Clin Perinatol 18: 423–439. pmid:1934850
  25. 25. Zanin IC, Goncalves RB, Junior AB, Hope CK, Pratten J (2005) Susceptibility of Streptococcus mutans biofilms to photodynamic therapy: an in vitro study. J Antimicrob Chemother 56: 324–330. pmid:15983029
  26. 26. Teixeira AH, Pereira ES, Rodrigues LK, Saxena D, Duarte S, Zanin IC (2012) Effect of photodynamic antimicrobial chemotherapy on in vitro and in situ biofilms. Caries Res 46: 549–554. pmid:22922473
  27. 27. Araujo NC, Fontana CR, Bagnato VS, Gerbi ME (2012) Photodynamic effects of curcumin against cariogenic pathogens. Photomed Laser Surg 30: 393–399. pmid:22693952
  28. 28. Paschoal MA, Santos-Pinto L, Lin M, Duarte S (2014) Streptococcus mutans photoinactivation by combination of short exposure of a broad-spectrum visible light and low concentrations of photosensitizers. Photomed Laser Surg 32: 175–180. pmid:24552467
  29. 29. Fontana CR, Abernethy AD, Som S, Ruggiero K, Doucette S, Marcantonio RC, et al. (2009) The antibacterial effect of photodynamic therapy in dental plaque-derived biofilms. J Periodontal Res 44: 751–759. pmid:19602126
  30. 30. Guggenheim B, Giertsen E, Schupbach P, Shapiro S (2001) Validation of an in vitro biofilm model of supragingival plaque. J Dent Res 80: 363–370. pmid:11269730
  31. 31. Herles S, Olsen S, Afflitto J, Gaffar A (1994) Chemostat flow cell system: an in vitro model for the evaluation of antiplaque agents. J Dent Res 73: 1748–1755. pmid:7983262
  32. 32. Koo H, Falsetta ML, Klein MI (2013) The exopolysaccharide matrix: a virulence determinant of cariogenic biofilm. J Dent Res 92: 1065–1073. pmid:24045647
  33. 33. Duarte S, Klein MI, Aires CP, Cury JA, Bowen WH, Koo H (2008) Influences of starch and sucrose on Streptococcus mutans biofilms. Oral Microbiol Immunol 23: 206–212. pmid:18402606
  34. 34. Aires CP, Del Bel Cury AA, Tenuta LM, Klein MI, Koo H, Duarte S, et al. (2008) Effect of starch and sucrose on dental biofilm formation and on root dentine demineralization. Caries Res 42: 380–386. pmid:18781066
  35. 35. Yoshida A, Yoshino F, Makita T, Maehata Y, Higashi K, Miyamoto C, et al. (2013) Reactive oxygen species production in mitochondria of human gingival fibroblast induced by blue light irradiation. J Photochem Photobiol B 129: 1–5. pmid:24141287
  36. 36. Feuerstein O, Persman N, Weiss EI (2004) Phototoxic effect of visible light on Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum: an in vitro study. Photochem Photobiol 80: 412–415. pmid:15623322
  37. 37. Bumah VV, Masson-Meyers DS, Cashin SE, Enwemeka CS (2013) Wavelength and bacterial density influence the bactericidal effect of blue light on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Photomed Laser Surg 31: 547–553. pmid:23621894
  38. 38. Dai T, Gupta A, Huang YY, Sherwood ME, Murray CK, Vrahas MS, et al. (2013) Blue light eliminates community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in infected mouse skin abrasions. Photomed Laser Surg 31: 531–538. pmid:23406384
  39. 39. Song HH, Lee JK, Um HS, Chang BS, Lee SY, Lee MK. (2013) Phototoxic effect of blue light on the planktonic and biofilm state of anaerobic periodontal pathogens. J Periodontal Implant Sci 43: 72–78. pmid:23678390
  40. 40. Dibdin GH, Shellis RP (1988) Physical and biochemical studies of Streptococcus mutans sediments suggest new factors linking the cariogenicity of plaque with its extracellular polysaccharide content. J Dent Res 67: 890–895. pmid:3170900
  41. 41. Zero DT, van Houte J, Russo J (1986) Enamel demineralization by acid produced from endogenous substrate in oral streptococci. Arch Oral Biol 31: 229–234. pmid:3459413
  42. 42. Vacca-Smith AM, Bowen WH (1998) Binding properties of streptococcal glucosyltransferases for hydroxyapatite, saliva-coated hydroxyapatite, and bacterial surfaces. Arch Oral Biol 43: 103–110. pmid:9602288
  43. 43. Gomelsky M, Hoff WD (2011) Light helps bacteria make important lifestyle decisions. Trends Microbiol 19: 441–448. pmid:21664820
  44. 44. Bonomi HR, Posadas DM, Paris G, Carrica Mdel C, Frederickson M, Pietrasanta LI, et al. (2012) Light regulates attachment, exopolysaccharide production, and nodulation in Rhizobium leguminosarum through a LOV-histidine kinase photoreceptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 12135–12140. pmid:22773814
  45. 45. Purcell EB, Siegal-Gaskins D, Rawling DC, Fiebig A, Crosson S (2007) A photosensory two-component system regulates bacterial cell attachment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 18241–18246. pmid:17986614
  46. 46. Feuerstein O, Moreinos D, Steinberg D (2006) Synergic antibacterial effect between visible light and hydrogen peroxide on Streptococcus mutans. J Antimicrob Chemother 57: 872–876. pmid:16533827