Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38919718›Full record

ReviewAIMS microbiology2024

Characterization and morphological methods for oral biofilm visualization: where are we nowadays?

Davide Gerardi, Sara Bernardi, Angelo Bruni, Giovanni Falisi, Gianluca Botticelli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AIMS microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. pH-OBiofilm · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Davide GerardiDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Sara BernardiDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Angelo BruniDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Giovanni FalisiDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Gianluca BotticelliDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The oral microbiome represents an essential component of the oral ecosystem whose symbiotic relationship contributes to health maintenance. The biofilm represents a state of living of microorganisms surrounding themselves with a complex and tridimensional organized polymeric support and defense matrix. The substrates where the oral biofilm adhere can suffer from damages due to the microbial community metabolisms. Therefore, microbial biofilm represents the main etiological factor of the two pathologies of dental interest with the highest incidence, such as carious pathology and periodontal pathology. The study, analysis, and understanding of the characteristics of the biofilm, starting from the macroscopic structure up to the microscopic architecture, appear essential. This review examined the morphological methods used through the years to identify species, adhesion mechanisms that contribute to biofilm formation and stability, and how the action of microbicidal molecules is effective against pathological biofilm. Microscopy is the primary technique for the morphological characterization of biofilm. Light microscopy, which includes the stereomicroscope and confocal laser microscopy (CLSM), allows the visualization of microbial communities in their natural state, providing valuable information on the spatial arrangement of different microorganisms within the biofilm and revealing microbial diversity in the biofilm matrix. The stereomicroscope provides a three-dimensional view of the sample, allowing detailed observation of the structure, thickness, morphology, and distribution of the various species in the biofilm while CLSM provides information on its three-dimensional architecture, microbial composition, and dynamic development. Electron microscopy, scanning (SEM) or transmission (TEM), allows the high-resolution investigation of the architecture of the biofilm, analyzing the bacterial population, the extracellular polymeric matrix (EPS), and the mechanisms of the physical and chemical forces that contribute to the adhesion of the biofilm to the substrates, on a nanometric scale. More advanced microscopic methodologies, such as scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM), high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HR-TEM), and correlative microscopy, have enabled the evaluation of antibacterial treatments, due to the potential to reveal the efficacy of different molecules in breaking down the biofilm. In conclusion, evidence based on scientific literature shows that established microscopic methods represent the most common tools used to characterize biofilm and its morphology in oral microbiology. Further protocols and studies on the application of advanced microscopic techniques are needed to obtain precise details on the microbiological and pathological aspects of oral biofilm.

Indexed as

microbial detectionmicroscopy techniquesoral biofilmoral microorganism

Identifiers

PMID38919718
PMCPMC11194622

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.