Advertisement

Cell and Tissue Banking

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 697–704 | Cite as

The evaluation of the transport medium for extracted premolars prior to cryopreservation: an in vitro study

  • Noëmi M. C. De Roo
  • Laurent A. M. Thierens
  • Liesbeth Temmerman
  • Elise Dekeyser
  • Jerina Boelens
  • Guy A. M. De Pauw
Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Autotransplantation is a versatile technique for the replacement of a missing tooth and cryopreservation can expand its scope. The aim of this in vitro study is to compare the antimicrobial effect of different transport protocols on procured teeth prior to cryopreservation. Streptococcus oralis biofilms were grown on ten sterile premolars, incubated for 48 h and subjected to the following transport procedures: an untreated (contaminated) control group, a group rinsed with phosphate buffered saline (PBS), a group transported in PBS, a group transported in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) supplemented with fetal calf serum (FCS), and a group transported in DMEM supplemented with FCS and antibiotics (AB). The effect of cryopreservation as such, as well as the combination with a transport medium (DMEM + FCS + AB) on the contamination was also tested. The surviving bacteria were harvested, and determined by plate counting. There was no significant reduction in contamination after rinsing the tooth, after transport in PBS or after transport in DMEM with FCS. Significant reductions were observed for transport in DMEM with AB when compared to the control group (p = 0.003). Cryopreservation as such reduced the biofilm significantly (p < 0.001). No cumulative effect could be found when transport in DMEM + FCS + AB was followed by cryopreservation. Within the limitations of this laboratory set-up, DMEM + FCS + AB was the most effective transport medium in S. oralis biofilm elimination. It could not be concluded that rinsing of the tooth gives an additional reduction. Cryopreservation as such decontaminated the teeth more effectively than any tested transport procedure.

Keywords

Autotransplantation Cryopreservation Transport Tissue culture media Antibiotics Decontamination Tooth bank 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been made possible through a collaboration with the Bimetra biobank, a high quality bio-repository for the University Hospital Ghent and Ghent University.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

All premolars were extracted for orthodontic reasons, following an informed consent protocol approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ghent University Hospital. The Ethics Committee of the Ghent University Hospital (Ref. B670201525342) approved this project (EC Project Number 2015/0827) on the 31st of August 2015.

References

  1. Aas JA, Paster BJ, Stokes LN, Olsen I, Dewhirst FE (2005) Defining the normal bacterial flora of the oral cavity. J Clin Microbiol 43:5721–5732.  https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.43.11.5721-5732.2005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Comfort MB (1980) The prevention of contamination of teeth stored for transplantation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 49:200–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Comfort MB (1982) An investigation into the reduction of tooth contamination in delayed transplantation. Int J Oral Surg 11:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dominici JT, Eleazer PD, Clark SJ, Staat RH, Scheetz JP (2001) Disinfection/sterilization of extracted teeth for dental student use. J Dent Educ 65:1278–1280Google Scholar
  5. Litwin J, Lundquist G, Soder PO (1971) Studies on long-term maintenance of teeth and viable associated cells in vitro. Scand J Dent Res 79:536–539Google Scholar
  6. Meire MA, Coenye T, Nelis HJ, De Moor RJ (2012) Evaluation of Nd:YAG and Er:YAG irradiation, antibacterial photodynamic therapy and sodium hypochlorite treatment on Enterococcus faecalis biofilms. Int Endod J 45:482–491.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.02000.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Paster BJ et al (2001) Bacterial diversity in human subgingival plaque. J Bacteriol 183:3770–3783.  https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.183.12.3770-3783.2001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Paster BJ, Olsen I, Aas JA, Dewhirst FE (2006) The breadth of bacterial diversity in the human periodontal pocket and other oral sites. Periodontol 2000 42:80–87.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2006.00174.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rouabhia M (2002) Interactions between host and oral commensal microorganisms are key events in health and disease status. Can J Infect Dis 13:47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sweeney LC, Dave J, Chambers PA, Heritage J (2004) Antibiotic resistance in general dental practice: a cause for concern? J Antimicrob Chemother 53:567–576.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkh137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Temmerman L, De Pauw GA, Beele H, Dermaut LR (2006) Tooth transplantation and cryopreservation: state of the art. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129:691–695.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oral Health Sciences, Department of OrthodonticsGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Laboratory MedicineGhent University HospitalGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology and ImmunologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations