Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24410850›Full record

ReviewBMC oral health2014

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

Lutz Netuschil, Thorsten M Auschill, Anton Sculean, Nicole B Arweiler

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Antibiofilm and antibacterial effects ofBiomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Guidance on biomaterials for periodontal tissue regeneration: Fabrication methods, materials and biological considerations.Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Assessment of Activity of Antiseptic Agents against Biofilm ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lutz NetuschilDepartment of Periodontology, Dental School, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany. lutznetuschil@web.de.
Thorsten M Auschill
Anton Sculean
Nicole B Arweiler
Philipps University of Marburg · DEUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Coloring AgentsMicrobial ViabilityBacterial LoadBacteriological TechniquesBiofilmsDental PlaqueEthidiumFluoresceinsFluorescenceFluorescent DyesHumansMutagensTerminology as TopicColoring AgentsdiacetylfluoresceinEthidiumFluoresceinsFluorescent DyesMutagens

Identifiers

PMID24410850
PMCPMC3898065
OpenAlexW2042232119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.