ReviewBMC oral health2014
Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms--which stain is suitable?
Review in BMC oral health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
47 citing papers in PubMed, 120 citations in OpenAlex.
- Substantivity of mouth-rinse formulations containing cetylpyridinium chloride and O-cymen-5-ol: a randomized-crossover trial.BMC oral health · 2022Trial
- Antibacterial Action, Substantivity and Anti-plaque Effect of Different Toothpaste Slurries - A Randomised Controlled Trial.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2021Trial
- Antibacterial surface engineering: bioinspiration from leaves to medical devices.RSC applied interfaces · 2026Review
- Detection to Disruption: A Comprehensive Review of Bacterial Biofilms and Therapeutic Advances.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- In Vitro Study to Evaluate the Antibacterial Effect of an Oxidising Agent on Ex Vivo Biofilm.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Article
- Sample Preparation Strategies for Microbial Cell Surface Proteomics: Integrating Shaving and Shotgun Approaches.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Antibiofilm and antibacterial effects ofBiomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- Shining Light on Oral Biofilm Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH): Probing the Accuracy of In Situ Biogeography Studies.Molecular oral microbiology · 2025Article
- Guidance on biomaterials for periodontal tissue regeneration: Fabrication methods, materials and biological considerations.Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2025Review
- The effect of the enzymes trypsin and DNase I on the antimicrobial efficiency of root canal irrigation solutions.Odontology · 2024Article
- Deep learning unlocks label-free viability assessment of cancer spheroids in microfluidics.Lab on a chip · 2024Article
- Evaluating models and assessment techniques for understanding oral biofilm complexity.MicrobiologyOpen · 2023Review
- Effectiveness of conservative instrumentation in root canal disinfection.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- The antibacterial activity of a photoactivatable diarylacetylene against Gram-positive bacteria.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the polyphenolic profile of native Ecuadorian stingless bee honeys (Current research in food science · 2023Article
- An intrinsically disordered antimicrobial peptide dendrimer from stereorandomized virtual screening.Cell reports. Physical science · 2022Article
- The Assessment of Activity of Antiseptic Agents against Biofilm ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Adhesion Forces of Oral Bacteria to Titanium and the Correlation with Biophysical Cellular Characteristics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Single-cell stable isotope probing in microbial ecology.ISME communications · 2022Review
- Characterization of spatiotemporal electroactive anodic biofilm activity distribution using 1D simulations.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.