Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis formed on the acrylic surface of ocular prostheses. In this study, 396 acrylic specimens were manufactured (50% for Staphylococcus epidermidis, and 50% for Staphylococcus aureus). For each bacterium, 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 24 hours, 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 48 hours, and 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 72 hours. Then, they were divided into groups according to disinfection method (n = 6): sterile distilled water for 10, 15, 30 min, and 6 hours (control); soap for 30 min (NES30); Opti-Free for 30 min (OPF30) and 6 h (OPF6); Efferdent for 15 min (EFF15); and 0.5%, 2%, and 4% chlorhexidine for 10 min (0.5% CHX10, 2% CHX10, and 4% CHX10). After the treatments, the specimens were vortexed to release the biofilm and the counting of bacterial colonies was performed (CFU/mL). Three-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer HSD test were used (α = 0.05). For Staphylococcus epidermidis, there was no significant difference between NES30, OPF30, and OPF6 with their respective control groups; nor between NES30, OPF30, and OPF6 themselves, regardless of the biofilm development period (P >0.05). For Staphylococcus aureus, there was no significant difference between NES30 and OPF30 with their control group; nor between NES30 and OPF30 themselves, regardless of the biofilm development period (P >0.05). For Staphylococcus aureus, OPF6 showed a significant reduction in the number of CFU/mL when compared with its control group, NES30, and OPF30, regardless of the biofilm development period (P <0.05). For both bacteria, 0.5% CHX10, 2% CHX10,4% CHX10, and EFF15 showed a significant reduction in the number of CFU/mL when compared with their control groups, NES30, OPF30, and OPF6, regardless of the biofilm development period (P <0.05). Therefore, EFF15 and CHX (0.5%, 2% and 4%) were effective in reducing Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus on acrylic surfaces. NES30 and OPF (30 and 6) are not recommended.
Highlights
The ocular prosthesis is a modality of the maxillofacial prosthesis, and is considered an important treatment for patients who underwent total or partial loss of an eyeball due to trauma, cancer, or genetic defects [1]
When the acrylic ocular prosthesis is in position inside the anophthalmic cavity, some degree of "dead space" can be observed between the back surface of the prosthesis and the anophthalmic cavity tissue, especially when the ocular prosthesis is poorly adapted in this cavity [1, 5, 6]
The 0.5% CHX10, 2% CHX10, 4% CHX10, and Efferdent for 15 min (EFF15) groups showed a significant reduction in the number of CFU/mL of Staphylococcus epidermidis compared with their respective control groups, regardless of the biofilm development period (P
Summary
The ocular prosthesis is a modality of the maxillofacial prosthesis, and is considered an important treatment for patients who underwent total or partial loss of an eyeball due to trauma, cancer, or genetic defects [1]. An eye prosthesis has the function of restoring aesthetics, preventing eyelid deformation (preserving the palpebral muscle tone), protecting the anophthalmic cavity from smoke pollutants and dust, guiding the tear flow and preventing the accumulation of tear fluid in this cavity [1,2,3] This type of prosthesis is responsible for helping to improve the psychological factor and quality of life of the patient [1]. The removal and placement of an ocular prosthesis in the anophthalmic cavity, and a poor prosthesis adjustment, can cause tissue irritation of the anophthalmic cavity [8] These circumstances promote an increase of mucus in the socket, which in turn favors the growth of pathogenic microorganisms [7]. According to Paranhos et al 2007, disinfection of the ocular prosthesis is essential as it leads to a reduction in the number of microorganisms in the anophthalmic cavity, improving the comfort of ocular prosthesis users, and their life quality [3]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
