Efficacy of Photodynamic Therapy in the Treatment of Dental Caries

Abstract

Background: Mechanical removal followed by restoration with restorative materials has been considered as a standard treatment for dental caries. Incomplete removal of microorganisms with currently available procedures leads to a skew in research towards adjunctive antimicrobial procedures like antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT). Conflicting evidences are available in using PDT as antimicrobial therapy and its usage in treating dental caries.  So, in this review the focused question is to find the efficacy of aPDT in treatment of dental caries by reducing number of viable cariogenic bacteria.

Methods: A systemic search in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ISI Web of knowledge, and Google-Scholar databases was done and a separate hand search was also conducted by two independent investigators (SP and MD) to address our focused question. Articles published up to July 2016 were considered. Terms used for search strategy were Photodynamic therapy, S. mutans, dental caries, clinical studies, randomized controlled trials, experimental studies, and combination of these terms. Data was extracted from prospective human studies and in-vitro studies without any language restrictions. Reviews, case reports, and letters to editors were excluded.

Results: Initially 104 references obtained with search strategy. Among them, 14 studies (9 experimental, 5 clinical studies) were included in this review based on the focused question. Though evidences from few studies are conflicting, majority of these studies reported that there is a reduction in viable cariogenic bacteria i.e S.Mutans after aPDT. Few studies have reported even reduction of other bacterial species count, Lactobacillus spcs and S. sanguinis,

Conclusion: Based on available evidences, aPDT is effective in reducing viable cariogenic bacterial count particularly S.mutans. Hence, aPDT can be used as an adjunctive treatment to regular restorative therapies. However, the parameters of photosensitizer and light sources should be standardized to apply aPDT as an adjunctive therapy to standard therapies of dental caries.

Introduction

Dental caries is a disease of the mineralized tissues of teeth, namely enamel, dentin, and cementum, caused by the action of cariogenic bacteria (predominantly Streptococcus [S.] mutans) on fermentable carbohydrates. If left untreated, dental caries can cause demineralization of these mineralized structures and disintegration of their organic matrix(1). Between the years 2011 and 2012, the prevalence of dental caries among children (5 to 19 years old) and adults (20 to 44 years old) in the United States was 17.5% and 27.4%, respectively (2).

The standard treatment of dental caries involves the mechanical removal of the carious lesion followed by restoration of the tooth with a restorative material such as amalgam, composite resins, etc.(1). Studies have shown that cariogenic bacteria may either turn dormant or die when they are isolated from their source of nutrition (e.g. saliva) using a restoration of adequate integrity (3). However, as most of the existing restorative materials are ineffective in achieving long-standing sealing of the dental cavity, it is important to find adjunctive ways of disinfecting the affected dentin before final restoration for getting additive results.(4).

Several studies have shown the use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) for the treatment of oral inflammatory conditions such as periodontitis, endodontic infections, and peri-implantitis.(5-9) Mechanism of action of aPDT involves the interaction between light and photosensitizer to inactivate cell functions.(10) A photosensitizer, when activated by light, produce reactive oxygen species and radicals which attacks bacterial cell membrane and kills the bacteria.(11) aPDT represents an adjunctive therapy to mechanical therapy in decontamination of oral bacteria, because it is a minimally invasive and nontoxic approach.(12) Results from in-vitro studies have shown that aPDT decreases cariogenic bacteria.(1, 13, 14) A study by Melo et al(15)showed a significant reduction in counts of S. mutansand Lactobacilli in carious lesions when treated by aPDT. Ricatto et al.(16) and Pereira et al.(17) showed a significant decrease in the viability of the planktonic Lactobacillus spp. and S. sanguinis respectively after treatment with aPDT. However, an in-vitro study by Teixeira et al (18) showed aPDT is ineffective in decreasing the viability of cariogenic bacteria.

Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to review the pertinent literature regarding efficacy of aPDT in management of dental caries as an adjunctive treatment by reducing viable count of cariogenic bacteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Focused question

Based on guidelines of systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA)(19), a specific question was constructed. The addressed focused question was “Is aPDT effective in the treatment of dental caries by reducing the viability of cariogenic bacteria?”

Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria comprised of the following: (1) original studies; (2) experimental studies; (3) clinical studies; (4) intervention: treatment of dental caries using antimicrobial PDT; (5) bacterial profile in vitro after aPDT application. The exclusion criteria included; review papers, case reports, commentaries, interviews, and letters to the editors.

Search strategy

A search without language or time restrictions up to July 2016 was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ISI Web of knowledge, and Google-Scholar databases to address our focused question. A systematic approach to literature searching was used to identify the appropriate papers that report the efficacy of aPDT on cariogenic bacteria. Electronic database searches were performed using different combinations of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free text words: 1. Photodynamic therapy; 2. S. mutans; 3. Dental caries; 4. Clinical studies; 5. Randomized controlled trials; 6. Experimental studies; and the combinations. Original studies were hand searched to find any articles that could have been missed during the initial search. Two authors (SP and FJ) performed hand search on following journals: Journal of Caries research, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry, Archives of oral biology, Journal of Dental Research, Lasers in Medical Science, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, Photo-diagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy, and Journal of Research and Science. Any disagreements regarding study selection were resolved via discussion.

RESULTS

All studies (1, 13-18, 20-26) included in our current review were performed at either universities or healthcare centers. Nine studies (16, 17, 20-26) were experimental (Table1) and 5 studies (1, 13-15, 18) had a clinical research design (Table 2). All experimental studies (16, 17, 20-26) were performed in an in vitro design.

Characteristics of experimental studies

All the experimental studies (16, 17, 20-26) included in our review were performed on cultured S. mutans isolates. Furthermore, studies by Ricatto et al(16) and Pereira et al(17) included isolates of  Lactobacillus and S. sanguinis respectively. (Table 3)

Laser and photosensitizer related parameters in experimental studies

A variety of light sources were used in the studies (16, 17, 20-26) included in our current review. Four studies (14, 17, 21, 22) used LED lights for aPDT. While, diode LASER(24), white light (26), High Potency Photopolymerizer (23) and halogen light (20) were used in test groups of other experimental studies. Light source with wavelengths ranging between 400 and 690 nm were used. The power output, energy fluency and duration of irradiation range between 30 mW and 3930 mW, 2.18 J cm−2 and 96 J cm−2 and 12 s and 180 s, respectively (Table1). In one study by Lee et al (20) information about wavelengths and power of light source remained unclear.

A variety of photosensitizers were used in experimental studies(16, 17, 20-26).  Two studies used Methylene Blue (MB)(67 to 100micro M), whereas, Toluidine Blue (TBO) (100microM), Erythrosine (20 microM), and Rose Bengal (2 microM) were used in studies by Bevilacqua et al(21), Lee et al(20), Leite et al(23) respectively. Studies by Paschoal et al(25, 26) compared the use of curcumin and TBO, whereas, studies by Costa et al(22) and Pereira et al(17) compared use of Erythrosine and Rose Bengal as photosensitizers in treatment of bacterial biofilms. (Table 1)

Outcomes of experimental studies

All the experimental studies(16, 17, 20-26) included in our current review shows the treatment of biofilms of patient mouth with aPDT has reported a significant decrease in the viability of the S. mutans when compared to control group. Also, studies by Ricatto et al(16) and Pereira et al(17) have showed a significant decrease in the viability of the Lactobacillus spp.and S. sanguinis respectively after treatment with aPDT. (Table 3)

Characteristics of clinical studies

Among the all the clinical studies (1, 13-15, 18) patients with deep dental caries were included in 3 studies(13-15), and other two studies(1, 18) included patients wearing acrylic palatal devices containing slabs of human dentine. The number of individuals ranged between 20 and 45 with age ranging between 3 and 38 years. The number of male and female participants ranged between 6 to 10 and 11 to 14, respectively. The number of teeth included in these studies (13-15) ranged from 10 and 100 teeth. Studies which used intra-oral devices loaded with human dentin slabs were included (1, 18). All the clinical studies have performed aPDT in test groups, however, no treatment was performed in the control groups (1, 13-15, 18). (Table 4)

Laser and photosensitizer related parameters in clinical studies

Three studies (1, 15, 18) used LED as their light source for aPDT, while Halogen light and diode LASER were used in test groups of other two clinical studies(13, 14) respectively. Four studies (13-15, 18)reported parameters of light source with wavelengths ranging between 550 nm and 700 nm. Power output and energy fluency ranging from 40 to 260 mill watts (mW) and 94 to 320 joules per square centimeters (J cm−2) respectively. In a study by Lima et al(1) information about wavelengths and power of light source remained unclear. (Table 2).

TBO and MB were used as photosensitizers in three (1, 15, 18) and two studies (13, 14), respectively. The concentration of TBO ranged between 5 and 100 microM. Three studies reported a pre-irradiation time of 5 minutes with their respective photosensitizer in the dark.(1, 13, 14)  (Table 2).

Outcomes of clinical studies

In four studies,(1, 13-15) treatment of microorganisms with aPDT has reported a significant decrease in the viability of the S. mutans; however, in one study(18), the viability of the S. mutans in both test and control groups were comparable even after aPDT. Interestingly in one study,(1) treatment for 10 min with energy fluency of 94 J cm−2 of LED irradiation had shown a significant effect on bacterial viability, even in the absence of any photosensitizer. Also, three studies (1, 13, 15) have shown significant decrease in the viability of the Lactobacilli after treatment with aPDT. (Table 4)

Discussion

This systematic review is based on the hypothesis that, aPDT is effective in the treatment of dental caries by reducing the viability of cariogenic bacteria like S. mutans. Results from 93% of studies(1, 13-17, 20-26) included in the present systematic review showed that aPDT showed significant reduction of microorganisms causing dental caries, however, only 7% of studies(18) showed an insignificant result in groups treated with or without aPDT. Even though results from the studies(1, 13-18, 20-26) appeared persuasive enough to conclude that aPDT exhibits antibacterial effects (against SM, LB, SS);  we observed a difference in the light source parameters/type and concentration/type of PS used in these studies.(1, 13-18, 20-26) For instance, experimental studies by Costa et al.,(22)Diniz et al.(24), Paschoal et al.(25) and Leite et al.(23) reported aPDT to exhibit antibacterial effects against S. mutans. In these studies (22-25) all the light source parameters, like the type of light (HCU, LED, LASER and WL respectively), the light wavelength (440 nm, 660 nm, 400-700nm, and 440-480nm, respectively), the energy fluency (95 J cm−2, 60 J cm−2, 42 J cm−2 and up to 96 J cm−2 ) and power output (200 mW, 40 mW, 3930mW) were inconsistent. Moreover, the duration of irradiation also varied among the studies (from 12.2 seconds up to 180 sec). Since most of the light source parameters varied between studies included in this review, it is difficult to accurately determine the parameters that would be most effective in treating oral bacteria causing dental caries.  However, two studies,(17, 22) showed consistency in light source parameters used.

In aPDT, the PS used has an ability to produce cytological agents to bring desired biologic effect.(27)   It has been reported that concentration of PS used in aPDT affects the overall antimicrobial efficacy.(28) Among the studies included in current review we have observed a discrepancy in the type of PS used. Approximately 57% studies used either TBO(1, 15, 18, 21) or MB(13, 14, 16, 24)  as PS, approximately 14% studies used either ER(20) or RB(23) and approximately 28% studies used two types, ER and RB(17, 22), CU and TB(25-27) as PS. We have also observed a difference in the concentration of PS used in these studies.(1, 13-18, 20-26). For example, in an experimental study(16), MB was used at a concentration of 100 microM whereas in a study a clinical study(13), the same PS was used at a concentration of 268 microM. However, due to absence of adequate clinical evidence, it is challenging to standardize the concentrations of PS that should be used for aPDT. It is also known that in a clinical setting, the concentration of PS used varies upon the severity of infection. Hence, further randomized controlled clinical trials are warranted to reach a consensus over the precise concentrations of PS used in treatment of dental caries.

Many in vitro studies have shown a great reduction in bacterial viability or even the fully elimination of cariogenic bacteria when organized in in-vitro biofilms (17, 20), bacteria embedded in collagen matrix (4, 29) or suspended in planktonic cultures (21, 22). However, when aPDT is tested under in vivo conditions by using dentin slabs (1,18, and 24) in oral environment and/or on natural teeth, the bacterial reduction is minimized. There might be many factors influencing the aPDT in oral environment. One assumption for this minimized in vitro bacterial reduction is, in carious tissue, the aPDT might be difficult because cariogenic bacteria are protected by a dentinal structure, which may limit the penetration of both the PS and the light(4). Furthermore, the interaction of light with dentinal structure is complex as a result of reflection and refraction at the surface of the intertubular and peritubular dentine.(15) Also, studies have shown that aPDT is more effective in monospecies biofilms when compared to multispecies biofilms.(30-32) Since most of the oral biofilms being contained multispecies microorganisms  the efficacy  of aPDT might not be in same way as shown in  in-vitro studies.

In a clinical setting the traditional treatment for deep dental caries is removal of all infected and affected dentin during caries excavation(33). However, by this approach there is always a chance of unnecessary removal of dentin tissue and an imminent risk of pulpal exposure, particularly in young patients.(34) With the advent of minimally invasive dentistry, the literature encourages conservative removal of carious tissue to promote the preservation affected dentin over the pulpal wall to avoid the pulpal exposure. By using adjunct aPDT immediate bacterial reduction can be obtained by dentin decontamination and this would further increase the chances of remineralization in the affected dentin. To date there is only one randomized clinical trial showing the decrease in cariogenic bacterial load in deep carious lesions treated by aPDT. Hence, based on the limited data available it is not possible to acknowledge the efficacy of aPDT in treatment of dental caries. Therefore, further randomized clinical trials are necessary to support the evidence of application of aPDT in treatment of dental caries.

Conclusions

According to evidences available, aPDT is effective in reducing viable cariogenic bacterial count. Further research is required in standardization of parameters of light and photosensitizer to acquire homogeneity between the studies and to use as an adjunctive antimicrobial treatment along with currently available standard treatments.

Table 1: Laser and photosensitizer parameters of included experimental studies
Authors	Source	Photosensitizer (Concentration in microM)	Pre-irradiation time (min)	Wavelength (nm)	Energy Fluence (J/ cm-2)	Power (mW)	Power density   (mW cm-2)	Duration of   Irradiation (Sec)
Ricatto et al(16)	LED   LASER	MB (100)	NA	630±20   660	NA	300   30	NA	120   88
Lee et al(20)	HCU	ER (20)	NA	NA	NA	NA	600	NA
Pereira et al(17)	BLED	RB (5)   ER (5)	5   5	455±20	95	200	526	180
Bevilacqua et al(21)	LED	TBO (100)	5	662 – 670	2.18	116	10	180
Costa et al(22)	LED	RB (2)   ER (2)	NA	440 – 460	95	200	526	180
Leite et al(23)	HPP	RB (2)	NA	440 – 480	96	NA	1,200	40
Diniz et al(24)	D-LASER	MB (67.5)	5	660	60	40	NA	60
Paschoal et al(25)	BLED   RLED	C (2500, 1250, 750)   TB (100, 50, 25)	1   5	400 – 440   570 – 690	NA	105   1650	95.5   1460	NA
Paschoal et al(26)	WL	C (0.075, 0.75, 7.5)   TB (0.25, 2.5, 25)	1   5	400 – 700	42	3930	3410	12.2
LED: Light Emitting Diode; LASER: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation; HCU: Halogen Curing Unit; BLED: Blue Light Emitting Diode; RLED: Red Light Emitting Diode; HPP: High Potency Photopolymerizer; D-LASER: Diode LASER; WL: White Light; MB: Methylene Blue; ER: Erythrosine; RB: Rose Bengal; TBO: Toluidine Blue O; TB: Toluidine Blue; C: Curcumin;

Table 2: Laser and photosensitizerparameters of included clinical studies
Authors	Source	Type of Photosensitizer	Pre-irradiation time	Wavelength (nm)	Energy Fluence (J/ cm-2)	Power (mW)	Power density   (mW/cm-2)	Duration of   Irradiation (Sec)
Lima et al(1)	LED	TBO (100)	5		47		NA	5
Araujo et al(14)	HCU	MB	5	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Melo et al(15)	RLED	TBO (100)	NA	630	94	150	NA	NA
Teixeira et al(18)	RLED	TBO (100)	NA	638.8	55	40	31.8	15
Guglielmi et al(13)	D-LASER	MB (268)	5	660	320	100	NA	1.5
LED: Light Emitting Diode; RLED: Red Light Emitting Diode; D-LASER: Diode LASER; HCU: Halogen Curing Unit;MB: Methylene Blue; TBO: Toluidine Blue O.

Table 3: Characteristics of experimental studies that fulfilled our eligibility criteria
Authors	Study design		Study groups	Assessed parameters	Study outcomes
Ricatto et al(16)	Cultures of SM and LB in agar plates	Test group   Control	Group 1: LED   Group 2: LASER Group 3: MB + LED Group 4: MB + LASER No treatment	SM   LB	Group 1 presented higher reduction of SM and LB compared to other groups.
Lee et al(20)	SM suspensions in 24 well plates	Test group   Control	Group 1: ER   Group 2: HCU Group 3: ER + HCU No treatment	SM	Group 1 presented higher reduction of SM compared to other groups.
Pereira et al(17)	SM and SS suspensions in 24 well plates	Test group   Control	Group 1: ER + LED   Group 2: ER Group 3: RB + LED Group 4: RB No treatment	SM SS	Group 1 presented higher reduction of SM and SS compared to other groups.
Bevilacqua et al(21)	SM suspensions in planktonic culture	Test group   Control	Group 1: TBO   Group 2: LED Group 3: TBO + LED No treatment	SM	Group 1 presented higher reduction of SM compared to other groups
Costa et al(22)	SM suspensions in 96 well plates	Test group   Control	Group 1: RB + LED   Group 2:  ER + LED Group 3: LED Group 4: RB Group 5: ER No treatment	SM	Group 1 presented higher reduction of SM compared to other groups
Leite et al(23)	SM suspensions in Brain Heart Infusion agar	Test group   Control	Group 1: RB + LED   Group 2: RB Group 3: LED No treatment	SM	Group 1 presented higher reduction of SM compared to other groups
Diniz et al(24)	SM suspensions in 96 well plates	Test group   Control	Group 1: MB + LASER   Group 2: MB Group 3: LASER No treatment	SM	Group 1 presented higher reduction of SM compared to other groups
Paschoal et al(25)	SM suspensions in planktonic culture	Test group   Control	Group 1: C + LED   Group 2: C Group 3: LED No treatment	SM	Group 1 presented higher reduction of SM compared to other groups
Paschoal et al(26)	SM suspensions in planktonic culture	Test group   Control	Group 1: C + WL   Group 2: C Group 3: WL Group 4: TB + WL Group 5: TB No treatment	SM	Group 1 presented higher reduction of SM compared to other groups
MB: Methylene Blue; ER: Erythrosine; RB: Rose Bengal; TBO: Toluidine Blue O; TB: Toluidine Blue; C: Curcumin; LED: Light Emitting Diode; LASER: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation; HCU: Halogen Curing Unit; BLED: Blue Light Emitting Diode; RLED: Red Light Emitting Diode; HPP: High Potency Photopolymerizer; D-LASER: Diode LASER;WL: White Light

Table 4: Characteristics of clinical studies that fulfilled our eligibility criteria
Authors	Subjects	Age range	Gender   M/F		Study groups	Number of   Teeth	Assessed parameters	Study outcomes
Lima et al(1)	20	19-36	6/14	Test group   Control	Group 1: TBO+LED   Group 2: TBO Group 3: LED No treatment	NA	SM   LB	Group 1 presented higher reduction of SM and LB compared to compared to other groups.
Araujo et al(14)	NA	3-9	NA	Test group   Control	MB+HCU   No treatment	10 molars	SM	Test group presented higher reduction of SM compered to control
Melo et al(15)	45	>18	NA	Test group   Control	TBO+RLED   No treatment	100	MS   LB	Test group presented higher reduction of SM and LB compered to control
Teixeira et al(18)	21	19-38	10/11	Test group   Control	TBO+RLED   No treatment	NA	MS	Counts of MS were comparable between the groups.
Guglielmi et al(13)	23	8-25	NA	Test group   Control	MB+D LASER   No treatment	26	MS   LBTE	Test group presented higher reduction of SM compered to control
MB: Methylene Blue; TBO: Toluidine Blue O; LED: Light Emitting Diode; RLED: Red Light Emitting Diode; D-LASER: Diode LASER; HCU: Halogen Curing Unit;

References

1. Lima JP, Sampaio de Melo MA, Borges FM, Teixeira AH, Steiner-Oliveira C, Nobre Dos Santos M, et al. Evaluation of the antimicrobial effect of photodynamic antimicrobial therapy in an in situ model of dentine caries. European journal of oral sciences. 2009;117(5):568-74.

2. Health, United States [Internet]. 2015. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus15.pdf#060.

3. Ricketts D. Deep or partial caries removal: which is best? Evidence-based dentistry. 2008;9(3):71-2.

4. Williams JA, Pearson GJ, Colles MJ, Wilson M. The photo-activated antibacterial action of toluidine blue O in a collagen matrix and in carious dentine. Caries research. 2004;38(6):530-6.

5. Komerik N, MacRobert AJ. Photodynamic therapy as an alternative antimicrobial modality for oral infections. Journal of environmental pathology, toxicology and oncology : official organ of the International Society for Environmental Toxicology and Cancer. 2006;25(1-2):487-504.

6. Zanin IC, Goncalves RB, Junior AB, Hope CK, Pratten J. Susceptibility of Streptococcus mutans biofilms to photodynamic therapy: an in vitro study. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 2005;56(2):324-30.

7. Zanin IC, Lobo MM, Rodrigues LK, Pimenta LA, Hofling JF, Goncalves RB. Photosensitization of in vitro biofilms by toluidine blue O combined with a light-emitting diode. European journal of oral sciences. 2006;114(1):64-9.

8. de Oliveira BP, Aguiar CM, Camara AC. Photodynamic therapy in combating the causative microorganisms from endodontic infections. European journal of dentistry. 2014;8(3):424-30.

9. Wood S, Metcalf D, Devine D, Robinson C. Erythrosine is a potential photosensitizer for the photodynamic therapy of oral plaque biofilms. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 2006;57(4):680-4.

10. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, De Angelis N, Camurati A, Campailla M, Felice P. The adjunctive use of light-activated disinfection (LAD) with FotoSan is ineffective in the treatment of peri-implantitis: 1-year results from a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial. European journal of oral implantology. 2013;6(2):109-19.

11. Takasaki AA, Aoki A, Mizutani K, Schwarz F, Sculean A, Wang CY, et al. Application of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in periodontal and peri-implant diseases. Periodontology 2000. 2009;51:109-40.

12. Soukos NS, Goodson JM. Photodynamic therapy in the control of oral biofilms. Periodontology 2000. 2011;55(1):143-66.

13. Guglielmi Cde A, Simionato MR, Ramalho KM, Imparato JC, Pinheiro SL, Luz MA. Clinical use of photodynamic antimicrobial chemotherapy for the treatment of deep carious lesions. Journal of biomedical optics. 2011;16(8):088003.

14. Araujo PV, Correia-Silva Jde F, Gomez RS, Massara Mde L, Cortes ME, Poletto LT. Antimicrobial effect of photodynamic therapy in carious lesions in vivo, using culture and real-time PCR methods. Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy. 2015;12(3):401-7.

15. Melo MA, Rolim JP, Passos VF, Lima RA, Zanin IC, Codes BM, et al. Photodynamic antimicrobial chemotherapy and ultraconservative caries removal linked for management of deep caries lesions. Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy. 2015;12(4):581-6.

16. Ricatto LG, Conrado LA, Turssi CP, Franca FM, Basting RT, Amaral FL. Comparative evaluation of photodynamic therapy using LASER or light emitting diode on cariogenic bacteria: An in vitro study. European journal of dentistry. 2014;8(4):509-14.

17. Pereira CA, Costa AC, Carreira CM, Junqueira JC, Jorge AO. Photodynamic inactivation of Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sanguinis biofilms in vitro. Lasers in medical science. 2013;28(3):859-64.

18. Teixeira AH, Pereira ES, Rodrigues LK, Saxena D, Duarte S, Zanin IC. Effect of photodynamic antimicrobial chemotherapy on in vitro and in situ biofilms. Caries research. 2012;46(6):549-54.

19. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine. 2009;151(4):264-9, w64.

20. Lee YH, Park HW, Lee JH, Seo HW, Lee SY. The photodynamic therapy on Streptococcus mutans biofilms using erythrosine and dental halogen curing unit. International journal of oral science. 2012;4(4):196-201.

21. Bevilacqua IM, Nicolau RA, Khouri S, Brugnera A, Jr., Teodoro GR, Zangaro RA, et al. The impact of photodynamic therapy on the viability of Streptococcus mutans in a planktonic culture. Photomedicine and laser surgery. 2007;25(6):513-8.

22. Costa AC, Chibebe Junior J, Pereira CA, Machado AK, Beltrame Junior M, Junqueira JC, et al. Susceptibility of planktonic cultures of Streptococcus mutans to photodynamic therapy with a light-emitting diode. Brazilian oral research. 2010;24(4):413-8.

23. Leite HL, Cavalcante SI, Sousa EM, Goncalves LM, Paschoal MA. STREPTOCOCCUS MUTANS PHOTOINACTIVATION USING A COMBINATION OF A HIGH POTENCY PHOTOPOLYMERIZER AND ROSE BENGAL. Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy. 2016.

24. Diniz IM, Horta ID, Azevedo CS, Elmadjian TR, Matos AB, Simionato MR, et al. Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy: a promise candidate for caries lesions treatment. Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy. 2015;12(3):511-8.

25. Paschoal MA, Lin M, Santos-Pinto L, Duarte S. Photodynamic antimicrobial chemotherapy on Streptococcus mutans using curcumin and toluidine blue activated by a novel LED device. Lasers in medical science. 2015;30(2):885-90.

26. Paschoal MA, Santos-Pinto L, Lin M, Duarte S. Streptococcus mutans photoinactivation by combination of short exposure of a broad-spectrum visible light and low concentrations of photosensitizers. Photomedicine and laser surgery. 2014;32(3):175-80.

27. Sharman WM, Allen CM, van Lier JE. Photodynamic therapeutics: basic principles and clinical applications. Drug discovery today. 1999;4(11):507-17.

28. Marcos-Arias C, Eraso E, Madariaga L, Carrillo-Munoz AJ, Quindos G. In vitro activities of new triazole antifungal agents, posaconazole and voriconazole, against oral Candida isolates from patients suffering from denture stomatitis. Mycopathologia. 2012;173(1):35-46.

29. Burns T, Wilson M, Pearson GJ. Effect of dentine and collagen on the lethal photosensitization of Streptococcus mutans. Caries research. 1995;29(3):192-7.

30. Muller P, Guggenheim B, Schmidlin PR. Efficacy of gasiform ozone and photodynamic therapy on a multispecies oral biofilm in vitro. European journal of oral sciences. 2007;115(1):77-80.

31. Qin Y, Luan X, Bi L, He G, Bai X, Zhou C, et al. Toluidine blue-mediated photoinactivation of periodontal pathogens from supragingival plaques. Lasers in medical science. 2008;23(1):49-54.

32. Fontana CR, Abernethy AD, Som S, Ruggiero K, Doucette S, Marcantonio RC, et al. The antibacterial effect of photodynamic therapy in dental plaque-derived biofilms. Journal of periodontal research. 2009;44(6):751-9.

33. Schwendicke F, Meyer-Lueckel H, Dorfer C, Paris S. Failure of incompletely excavated teeth–a systematic review. Journal of dentistry. 2013;41(7):569-80.

34. Orhan AI, Oz FT, Orhan K. Pulp exposure occurrence and outcomes after 1- or 2-visit indirect pulp therapy vs complete caries removal in primary and permanent molars. Pediatric dentistry. 2010;32(4):347-55.