Expected Double Digit Growth for Invisible Braces Through 2021
Invisible braces have made orthodontic treatment an attractive option for many consumers. Improvements in their technology and growing awareness of their aesthetic applications have led to their success in the global market, which will continue to rise at a 12.16% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) through 2021, reports Azoth Analytics. The market already has a strong foothold in North America and Europe. Growing dental tourism in Mexico and Thailand, though, will continue to contribute to its success. India and Brazil along with emerging nations in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region also will fuel this new growth. Specifically, in China, Invisalign holds 35% of the market, while indigenous brand Angel Align leads with 38%, according to Research and Markets. Medical reforms, growing per capita disposable income, and greater public health awareness are driving dentistry’s growth in the nation. Overall, China’s dental apparatus and services market will grow from about $6.1 billion in 2015 to an expected $22.8 billion in 2020. The global dental market— which includes preventive, restorative, implants, prosthetics, orthodontics, endodontics, and dental equipment—will surpass $50 billion by 2020, Research and Markets reports. - See more at: http://www.dentistrytoday.com/news/industrynews/item/991-invisible-braces-to-see-12-16-growth-through-2021?highlight=WyJicmFjZXMiLCJicmFjZXMnIl0=
Sourch: Dentistry.com News
APRIL IS NATIONAL FACIAL PROTECTION MONTH
Many sports injuries can be prevented by wearing appropriate protective gear. April is National Facial Protection Month. Dr. Kaprelian wants to remind athletes, their parents and coaches to play it safe by wearing mouth guards and appropriate protective gear when participating in activities that could cause injuries.
Mouth guards are one of the least expensive pieces of protective equipment available. Over-the-counter versions may cost as little as $5. Mouth guards can protect teeth and jaws, but they only provide protection when they are worn, so Dr. Kaprelian advises parents and coaches to remind youngsters to always use a mouth guard when participating in any activity during which the mouth could come into contact with a hard object or the pavement.
Athletes who wear braces should consult their orthodontist for a recommendation of the best mouth guard to wear during orthodontic treatment,
Consistent use of other protective equipment is important, too. Helmets save lives and prevent head injuries. They should be worn for activities such as bicycling, skateboarding or skating on in-line skates. Helmet wear is mandated for many organized sports. Helmets should be worn for any activity that puts the head at risk.
Face guards, devices made of plastic or metal that attach to baseball helmets, help to prevent facial injuries as well.
National Facial Protection Month is co-sponsored annually by the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO), the oldest and largest dental specialty organization in the world, and by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS), the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD), Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD)and the American Dental Association (ADA).
Orthodontists receive an additional two to three years of specialized education beyond dental school to learn the proper way to align and straighten teeth. Only those with this formal education may call themselves “orthodontists,” and only orthodontists are eligible for membership in the AAO. The AAO’s website is mylifemysmile.org.
Mouth Piercings Increase the Risk of Tooth Fractures and Gum Disease
According to a study conducted by Liran Levin, DDS, a dentist from the Department of Oral Rehabilitation in the School of Dental Medicine at Tel Aviv University, teens with oral piercings are at high risk for tooth fractures and gum disease.
“There are short-term complications to piercings in low percentages of teens, and in rare cases a piercing to the oral cavity can cause death,” said Levin. “Swelling and inflammation of the area can cause edema, which disturbs the respiratory tract.”
Levin warns that the most common concerns—tooth fracture and periodontal complications—are long-term.
“There is a repeated trauma to the area of the gum,” said Levin. “You can see these young men and women playing with the piercing on their tongue or lip. This act prolongs the trauma to the mouth and in many cases is a precursor to anterior tooth loss.”
In the study, the researchers surveyed teens with and without piercings and asked them a number of questions about their oral health, their knowledge of the risk factors associated with piercings, and about their piercing history, before conducting the clinical oral exams.
Levin noted that the youngsters who opted for oral piercings were very concerned about body image, but seemed to be unaware of the future risks that they can cause.
According to Levin and his colleagues, teens should avoid getting their mouths pierced. If the teen insists, then it’s essential that piercing tools are disposable, and that all other equipment is cleaned in an onsite autoclave to help reduce infection. After the procedure, the area should be rinsed regularly with a chloroxidine-based mouthwash for 2 weeks. The teen should also avoid playing with the piercing and clean it on a regular basis. Calculus deposits on the piercing may form over time and should be removed by a dentist. Checkups should be made regularly.
[Science Daily, June 24, 2008]
New Study Shows Chewing Sugar-Free Gum Helps Reduce Cavities By Trapping Bacteria
Quantification and Qualification of Bacteria
Trapped in Chewed Gum
Stefan W. Wessel1, Henny C. van der Mei1*, David Morando2, Anje M. Slomp1, Betsy van
de Belt-Gritter1, Amarnath Maitra2, Henk J. Busscher1
1 University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Groningen, The Netherlands, 2 William Wrigley, Jr. Company, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America
Chewing of gum contributes to the maintenance of oral health. Many oral diseases, including
caries and periodontal disease, are caused by bacteria. However, it is unknown whether
chewing of gum can remove bacteria from the oral cavity. Here, we hypothesize that chewing
of gum can trap bacteria and remove them from the oral cavity. To test this hypothesis,
we developed two methods to quantify numbers of bacteria trapped in chewed gum. In the
first method, known numbers of bacteria were finger-chewed into gum and chewed gums
were molded to standard dimensions, sonicated and plated to determine numbers of colony-
forming-units incorporated, yielding calibration curves of colony-forming-units retrieved
versus finger-chewed in. In a second method, calibration curves were created by fingerchewing
known numbers of bacteria into gum and subsequently dissolving the gum in a
mixture of chloroform and tris-ethylenediaminetetraacetic-acid (TE)-buffer. The TE-buffer
was analyzed using quantitative Polymerase-Chain-Reaction (qPCR), yielding calibration
curves of total numbers of bacteria versus finger-chewed in. Next, five volunteers were requested
to chew gum up to 10 min after which numbers of colony-forming-units and total
numbers of bacteria trapped in chewed gum were determined using the above methods.
The qPCR method, involving both dead and live bacteria yielded higher numbers of retrieved
bacteria than plating, involving only viable bacteria. Numbers of trapped bacteria
were maximal during initial chewing after which a slow decrease over time up to 10 min was
observed. Around 108 bacteria were detected per gum piece depending on the method and
gum considered. The number of species trapped in chewed gum increased with chewing
time. Trapped bacteria were clearly visualized in chewed gum using scanning-electron-microscopy.
Summarizing, using novel methods to quantify and qualify oral bacteria trapped
in chewed gum, the hypothesis is confirmed that chewing of gum can trap and remove bacteria
from the oral cavity.
Descriptions of the first use of chewing gum date back to the ancient Greek, who used tree resins
from the mastic tree to quench thirst and refresh their breath. The first commercial chewing
gum was not successfully marketed until the late 19th century, when the rubbery tree sap of the
Sapodilla tree formed the basis for gum manufacturing . In the late 20th century, chewing
gum is not only regarded as a symbol of lifestyle, but also effects on cognitive performance,
mood, alertness and appetite control have been reported [2–5]. Moreover, chewing gum has
developed more and more towards an oral care and functional food product (“nutraceutical”),
as it provides an easily applicable drug delivery vehicle with potential benefits for oral health
. High consumption rates, up to 2.5 kg per person per year, have made it into a billion dollar
industry [6,7]. Most chewing gums consist of a mixture of food grade synthetic elastomers, like polyvinyl
acetate or polyisobutylene, generally referred to as the gum-base . Important requirements
to gum-base materials are that they do not dissolve in the oral cavity and can be chewed for
long periods of time without undergoing compositional and structural changes. In most commercially
available chewing gums, the gum-base is supplemented with sweeteners, flavors and
other bulking agents, while nowadays sugar is frequently replaced by artificial sweeteners such
as sorbitol, xylitol or mannitol [6,7].
The inclusion of xylitol and other artificial sweeteners has been described to reduce the formation
of oral biofilms on teeth [8,9]. Oral biofilms are causative to the world’s most widespread
infectious diseases, namely dental caries and periodontal disease . Caries arises
from an unbalance between naturally occurring de- and remineralization of dental enamel.
Demineralization occurs when the pH of oral biofilm drops below 5.5  due to the fermentation
of carbohydrates by specific bacterial strains in oral biofilms on teeth. Most artificial sugars
are not or barely fermented by oral bacteria and therewith do not lower the pH . Moreover,
chewing gum yields enhanced mastication that stimulates salivation, which clears fermentable
carbohydrates, dislodges loosely bound oral bacteria from oral surfaces  and increases the
concentrations of calcium and phosphates in the oral cavity required for remineralization .
Fluorides have been added to commercial gums to prevent enamel demineralization and stimulate
remineralization . It is tempting to regard the chewing of gum as an addendum to
daily oral hygiene procedures, especially since most people are unable to maintain a level of
oral biofilm control required to prevent disease through daily toothbrushing and other conventional
oral hygiene measures. This has led to the incorporation of antimicrobials like chlorhexidine
 and herbal extracts  to chewing gums and gums have indeed been demonstrated
successful in preventing re-growth of oral biofilm . It is also known that chewing of gum
aids in the removal of interdental debris . To increase the cleaning power of chewing gum,
detergents like polyphosphates  have been added to gums. However, it is unclear whether
chewing of gum itself will actually remove bacteria from the oral cavity. Especially the preferential
removal in sizeable numbers of disease-causing microorganisms like acid-producing Streptococcus
mutans or species that are regarded as initial colonizers of tooth surfaces by chewing
gum would turn chewing gum into a valuable addendum to daily oral hygiene.
Therefore, the aim of this study is firstly to develop methods to quantify the number of bacteria
that are trapped into a gum after chewing, and secondly to qualitatively determine the
bacterial composition of bacteria trapped in chewed gums. The first method is based on measuring
the number of colony-forming units (CFUs) that can be retrieved from pieces of gum,
chewed by different volunteers. The method relies on finger-chewing known numbers of different
oral bacterial strains into commercially available spearmint gums and retrieving bacteria
from the gums by sonication followed by agar-plating of the bacterial suspension to yield a
Bacterial Trapping in Chewed Gum calibration curve. By comparing it to the number of bacteria retrieved from pieces of
gum chewed by volunteers, the number of CFUs trapped in pieces of chewed gum can be calculated.
In the second method, pieces of chewed gum are dissolved and the amount of bacterial genomic
DNA is quantitated using quantitative Polymerase-Chain-Reaction (qPCR) and converted
to numbers of bacteria trapped in the chewed gums using a calibration curve, also obtained by
finger-chewing. The composition of the different bacterial species trapped in chewed gum was
compared with the composition of the salivary microbiome and the microbiome adhering to
teeth using Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis (DGGE). Finally, we demonstrate bacterial
presence in chewed gum using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM).
Materials and Methods
Two commercially available spearmint chewing gums were used in this study: Gum A – (commercially
available spearmint gum, 1.5 g tabs). Composition in descending order of predominance
by weight: Sorbitol, gum base, glycerol. Natural and artificial flavors; less than 2% of:
Hydrogenated starch hydrolysate, aspartame, mannitol, acesulfame K, soy lecithin, xylitol,
beta-carotene, blue 1 lake and butylated hydroxytoluene.
Gum B – (commercially available spearmint gum, 1.5 g tabs.). Composition in descending
order of predominance by weight: Sorbitol, gum base, glycerin, mannitol, xylitol. Natural and
artificial flavors; less than 2% of: Acesulfame K, aspartame, butylated hydroxytoluene, blue 1
lake, soy lecithin and yellow 5 lake. Both gums were similarly hydrophobic with water contact
angles on sectioned pieces of gum of 69 and 74 degrees for gum A and B, respectively.
Method 1: Enumeration of Bacteria Trapped in Chewed Gums using
Sonication of Gum Molded to Standard Dimensions
Basics of the Method and Preparation of a Calibration Curve
In this method, four different bacterial strains were used for the preparation of a calibration
curve that relates the numbers of CFUs retrieved from a piece of gum to the numbers of CFUs
incorporated in the gum for coccus-shaped Streptococcus oralis J22, Streptococcus mutans
ATCC 25175, Streptococcus mitis ATCC 9811 and rod-shaped Actinomyces naeslundii T14VJ1.
S. oralis and A. naeslundii are considered initial colonizers of tooth surfaces in vivo [21,22],
while S. mutans is causative to dental caries  and S. mitis is an abundantly present species
in the oral cavity . Streptococci were grown aerobically in Todd Hewitt Broth (THB) at
37°C and actinomyces anaerobically in Schaedler broth. Bacteria were first grown on THB agar
or blood agar plates from a frozen stock in dimethylsulfoxide for 24 h after which one colony
was inoculated in 10 ml of the appropriate culture medium and incubated for 24 h. A main culture
was prepared with a 1:10 dilution in fresh medium for 16 h. Main cultures were sonicated
for 1 × 10 s at 30W(Vibra Cell model 375, Sonics and Materials Inc., Danbury, CT, USA) to
suspend bacterial aggregates. The bacterial concentration was determined using the Bürker
Türk counting chamber, while percentage viability of the suspended bacteria was determined
after serial dilution and agar-plating. Next, concentrations were adjusted to 104, 105, 107 and
109 bacteria per ml. Since viability of the cultures was near 100%, these numbers are equivalent
to 4, 5, 7 and 9 log-units of CFUs per ml.
For each strain, known numbers of CFUs were finger-chewed into gum pieces by adding
1.5 g chewing gum together with 200 μl of a bacterial suspension into the finger of a sterile
latex glove (Powder-Free Latex Examination Gloves, VWR international, Radnor, USA). Next,
bacteria were finger-chewed into the gumin a water bath at 37°C for 5min. After finger-chewing,
Bacterial Trapping in Chewed Gum the gum was removed from the glove, dipped once in 10 ml sterile water and put
into a Teflon mold (15 × 15×1mm) with a sterile pair of tweezers to create reproducible gum dimensions (15 ×
15 × 4 mm) and surface area (690 mm2). Subsequently, the gum was inserted in sterile polystyrene
cups with 5 ml filter sterile Reduced Transport Fluid (RTF) . Bacteria were removed from the
gum surface layer by sonication for 60 s in a water bath sonicator (ELMA Transsonic TP690, Elma
GmbH & Co, Germany). Sonication times up to 60 s did not affect bacterial viability [26,27].
Finally, the resulting suspension was serially diluted, plated on THB agar or blood agar plates
(Blood agar base no. 2, 40 g/l, hemin5mg/l,menadion 1 mg/l, sheep blood 50 ml/l) and incubated
at 37°Cfor 48 h after which the number of CFUs retrievedwere counted.Accordingly, since different
numbers of bacteria were finger-chewed into the gums, a calibration curve was made of the
numbers of CFUs retrieved from each gum for the different bacterial strains versus the numbers of
CFUs finger-chewed into the gum. To account for possible loss of bacteria due to adhesion to the
inner surface of the glove, the glove finger was turned inside out after removal of the gum and
sonicated in 10ml filter sterileRTF for 60 s and serial dilutions plated on agar plates as described
above after which the number of CFUs lost were determined. Similarly, the water in which the
finger-chewed gums were dipped (see above) was analyzed for bacterial losses. Calibration curves
were made in triplicate for each chewing gum and bacterial strain.
Application of the Method in Human Volunteers
Volunteers included in this study were five healthy members of the department of Biomedical
Engineering (1 male, 4 females, aged 27 to 56 years). All experiments were performed according
to the rules as set out by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center
Groningen, and they approved this study (approval METc 2011/330). Volunteers gave their
written informed consent. Inclusion criteria described that all volunteers should be in good
health and have at least 16 natural elements. Exclusion criteria were the use of antibiotics or
mouth rinses in the month prior to the study or the use of antibiotics, mouth rinses and additional
chewing gum during the study. Furthermore, volunteers were requested to brush their
teeth twice a day, according to their habitual routines.
On separate days, volunteers were asked to chew 1.5 g (one serving size) of each chewing
gum once a day at the same time for 0.5, 1, 3, 5 or 10 min according to their own personal routine
without specific instructions for chewing. Chewing time and gum types (A or B) were randomly
assigned to the volunteers over the experimental period. After chewing, the gum was
spit in a polystyrene cup with 10 ml sterile water, after which the chewed gum was put into the
Teflon mold and sonicated, as described above. Resulting suspensions were serial diluted, agarplated
and the numbers of CFUs were determined after incubation for 7 days at 37°C under anaerobic
conditions (5% H2, 10% CO2, 85% N2) (Concept 400 anaerobic workstation, Ruskinn
Technology Ltd., Pencoed, UK). Finally, the numbers of CFUs retrieved from the gums after
different chewing times and for both types of gum were converted to the total number of CFUs
trapped in chewed gums using the calibration curve obtained from finger-chewing known
numbers of bacteria into the gums. Note that this requires the assumption that bacterial viablility
is equally maintained in finger-chewed gum as in gum chewed by volunteers. All experiments
were carried out in duplicate for each volunteer, gum type and time point.
Method 2: Enumeration of Bacteria Trapped in Chewed Gums using
qPCR and Microbial Composition
Basics of the Method and Preparation of a Calibration Curve
Similar to method 1, a calibration curve was made by finger-chewing known numbers of S. oralis
J22, S. mutans ATCC 25175, S. mitis ATCC 9811 or A. naeslundii T14V-J1 in the different
Bacterial Trapping in Chewed Gum
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0117191 January 20, 2015 4 / 12
spearmint gums. Bacterial concentrations were adjusted using the Bürker Türk counting chamber
to 107, 109 and 1010 bacteria per ml, in which the latter concentration was achieved by centrifugation
(5 min, 5000 g at 10°C). After finger-chewing as described above, the gum was
removed from the glove, dipped once in 10 ml sterile water and subsequently dissolved in a
mixture of 5 ml chloroform (67-66-3, Fisher Scientific, Waltham, USA) and 3 ml tris-ethylenediaminetetraacetic-
acid (TE) buffer (AM9849, Ambion—LifeTechnologies, Carlsbad, USA) in
a sterile centrifuge tube. The gum was dissolved in 45 min by shaking horizontally. The resulting
suspension was centrifuged for 10 min at 1500 g to remove large particles and gum base
from the aqueous TE buffer top layer.
For qPCR, 17.5 μl master mix was used for every sample consisting of 10 μl PCR—mix (iQ5
SYBR Green Supermix, Bio-rad, Hercules, USA), 5 μl DNA free water (95284, Sigma, St. Louis
MO, USA) and 2.5 μl primer mix (300 nM). To amplify the universal V3 region of the 16S
rRNA gene in all samples F357-GC was used as the forward primer and R-518  as the reverse
primer. In a 384-well PCR plate (HSP-3805, Bio-rad, Hercules, USA ), 2.5 μl of sample dilutions
(1×, 10×, 100×), taken from the centrifuged aqueous TE buffer top layer, was mixed
with 17.5 μl of master mix. Subsequently, a qPCR was performed on a thermocycler (CFX384,
Bio-rad, Hercules, USA), according to a 3 step amplification (95.0°C for 45 s, 58.0°C for 45 s,
72°C for 60 s) of 39 cycles. A calibration curve was obtained by relating threshold cycle (Ct) at
fixed relative fluorescence units to the number of bacteria chewed-in the gum [29,30]. Calibration
curves were obtained for both gums in triplicate for all four bacterial strains. DNA free
water and a piece of unchewed gum, dissolved as described above, were used as
Application of the Method in Human Volunteers
Five healthy members of the department of Biomedical Engineering chewed each type of chewing
gum, as described above. Chewed gum was spit in a polystyrene cup with 10 ml sterile
water after which the gum was dissolved in a sterile centrifuge tube with the mixture of chloroform
and TE buffer. After centrifugation, qPCR was performed using the aqueous TE buffer
top layer (see above). The total number of bacteria trapped in the gum was determined using
the calibration curve. Part of each dissolved gum TE-buffer sample was stored in −80°C for
later DGGE analysis.
Determination of the Bacterial Composition using DGGE
The composition of the different species trapped in pieces of chewed gum was determined
using DGGE and compared to the bacterial compositions of the planktonic, salivary microbiome
and the microbiome adhering to tooth surfaces. After 10 min of chewing, volunteers
were asked to donate 1 ml of unstimulated saliva and collect oral biofilm from their entire dentition
using a cotton swab and a sterile hook in 1 ml RTF. Both saliva and biofilm samples were
centrifuged at 18000 g for 5 min (Eppendorf Centrifuge 5417R, Hamburg, Germany), DNA
was isolated , after which the samples were resuspended in 50 μl TE buffer.
The DNA concentration of saliva, biofilm and dissolved gum samples were measured with
the Nanodrop Spectrophotometer (ND-110, NanoDrop Technologies Inc., Wilmington, DE,
USA). A PCR was performed with 100 ng DNA using the primers and amplification program
as described above. The products of the PCR were applied on a polyacrylamide gel (8% w/v) in
0.5 TAE buffer (20 mM Tris acetate, 10 mM sodium acetate, 0.5 mM EDTA, pH 8.3). Using a
100% stock solution (7M urea, 37% formamide) a denaturing gradient was made with the
range of 30–80%. A stacking gel without denaturant was added on top and equal amounts of
sample were applied to the gel. Electrophoresis was performed overnight at 60°C and 120
V. Silver nitrate solution (0.2% AgNO3) was used until maximal staining intensity was reached.
Gels were scanned and transferred to analysis software BioNumerics (v7.1 Applied Maths,
Sint-Martens-Latem, Belgium). Gels were normalized to reference markers that were added to
every gel. Presence of a band on the gel was taken as the presence of a bacterial species or strain
in the sample. The similarity of bands was determined according to the band-based matching
module in the software (0.5% optimization, 1% band tolerance).
Scanning Electron Microscopy
In order to visualize bacteria trapped in chewed gum, a 5 min chewed gum piece was spit into
liquid nitrogen, kept immersed for 2 min and broken into multiple pieces, which were subsequently
examined in a SEM (JEOL JSM-6301F, Akishima, Japan). Gum pieces were fixed directly
for 24 h in 2.0% glutaraldehyde at 4.0°C, washed with 0.1 Mcacodylate buffer and
incubated for 1 h in 1.0% OsO4 in 0.1Mcacodylate buffer at room temperature. After washing
with water, samples were dehydrated with an ethanol series (30, 50 and 70%) each for 15 min
and 3 times 30 min with 100% ethanol. Fracture surfaces of the chewed gum were examined
for the presence of bacteria at a magnification of 7.500× with an acceleration voltage of 2.0 kV
and 39.0 mm working distance.
Data was evaluated for normality using Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p < 0.05)
and in case of a normal distribution equality of means was tested using an ANOVA followed by
Tukey-HSD post hoc test (p < 0.05). In case no normal distribution of data was observed, a nonparametric
Kruskal-Wallis test was used (p < 0.05). SPSS v20.0 (IBMCorp., Armonk, USA) to
conduct all statistical analysis.
Bacteria of the four different strains were finger-chewed into the two different types of chewing
gums in order to obtain a relation between the number of bacteria trapped in a gum piece and
the number of CFUs or total bacteria that can be retrieved from a gum by agar-plating or
qPCR, respectively. On average, 0.05 log-units of CFUs were lost due to adhesion to the surface
of the glove in which gums were finger-chewed, while A. naeslundii adhered in slightly higher
numbers to the glove surface than streptococcal strains. Bacterial losses due to dipping the finger-
chewed gum pieces in water were much smaller and amounted on average 0.004 log-units
Accounting for these losses, linear relations were obtained for both methods (Fig. 1). For
CFUs, the calibration lines were independent of the gum type involved. Lines were generally independent
of the bacterial strains involved, apart from a small but statistically significant difference
(p < 0.05) between A. naeslundii and S. mitis at the highest bacterial concentration
(Fig. 1A). As sonication can only release bacteria trapped in a gum from the outer surface, the
number of bacteria retrieved was roughly 1.5 log-units less than chewed-in. The qPCR method
yielded small but statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in Ct values for the different
bacterial strains (Fig. 1B). However, neglecting these strain-related differences, average linear
calibration lines could be obtained that were independent of the gum type involved.
Next, volunteers were asked to chew the two types of chewing gums for varying amounts of
time up to 10 min and the number of bacteria chewed-in was determined in terms of CFUs
after sonication and agar-plating or in terms the total number of bacteria, as obtained after dissolving
the gum and performing qPCR on bacterial DNA. Agar plating indicates that most
CFUs are trapped (approximately 7.8 log-units) within the first minute, regardless of the gum
involved, while approximately 1 log-unit less CFUs remained trapped in a gum piece after
Bacterial Trapping in Chewed Gum prolonged chewing (Fig. 2A). qPCR yields higher numbers of bacteria retrieved than
agar-plating (Fig. 2B), but displays only a minor decrease in total number of bacteria trapped in time for
both types of chewing gums.
The number of species detected in chewed gum increases with increasing chewing time for
both types of chewing gums (Fig. 3A), while after 10 min of chewing 50–70% of the detected
species in the salivary and adhering microbiome are ultimately detected in the chewed gum
piece (Fig. 3B). A more elaborate analysis of the origin of bacterial species found in chewed
gum indicated that 9% and 16% of the species found in chewed gum were solely detected in the
adhering oral microbiome for gum A and B, respectively, while a relatively similar percentage
of approximately 15% of the detected species chewed-in were solely found in the salivary
microbiome (Fig. 3C). Remaining percentages of species found in chewed gum could either be
attributed to the salivary or the adhering microbiome or their origin could not be detected, suggesting
the tongue, gums or oral mucosal surfaces as an origin.
Considering the numbers of bacteria found in chewed gum and the field of view and depth
of focus of SEM, it can be appreciated that microscopic imaging of trapped bacteria in chewed
gum is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Yet after extensive searching, a scanning electron
micrograph could be taken of a chewed gum piece showing an open and porous structure
(Fig. 4) in which trapped bacteria can be observed as direct evidence of the ability of chewing
gum to trap bacteria during chewing.
Figure 2. Bacteria trapped in two different types of spearmint gums chewed by human volunteers as
function of time. The number of bacteria trapped in chewed gums for two types of spearmint gums as a
function of the chewing time. Error bars denote the standard deviation over a group of five volunteers, with
each volunteer having chewed the same gum twice for all time points. A. CFUs trapped per gum piece
obtained after molding, sonication and agar-plating. B. Total number of bacteria trapped per gum piece
obtained after dissolving the gum and performing qPCR.
Figure 3. Diversity of bacterial strains and species trapped in chewed gum in comparison with the
bacterial diversity in the salivary microbiome and the micobiome adhering to tooth surfaces. A. The
number of bands in DGGE gels in bacterial DNA obtained from pieces of chewed gum as a function of the
chewing time. Error bars denote the standard deviation over a group of five volunteers. No statistically
significant differences were observed. B. Percentage of species detected in the microbiome adhering to tooth
surfaces or in the salivary microbiome relative to the number of species found in chewed gum (10 min of
chewing) set at 100%. Error bars denote the standard deviation over a group of five volunteers. No
statistically significant differences were observed. C. Percentage of species found in chewed gum based on
origin, i.e. found in chewed gum and the adhering microbiome, chewed gum and the salivary microbiome and
found in gum and both microbiomes. The category “other origin” indicates species that were solely found in
chewed gum and below detection in the salivary and in the adhering microbiome.
In this paper we provide evidence that bacteria are trapped inside gum pieces chewed by
human volunteers and therewith may contribute to the maintenance of oral health. The number
of bacteria trapped in chewed gums were determined using two distinctly different methods.
Finger-chewing and subsequent sonication and agar-plating demonstrated that
approximately 1–1.5 log-units less than the number of bacteria chewed-in could be retrieved,
regardless of the type of gum or bacterial strain involved, i.e. coccus- or rod-shaped microorganisms
(Fig. 1A). Although this recovery is confined to the surface layer of the gums amenable
to sonic removal of chewed-in bacteria and therefore relatively low, it allows to culture the bacteria
retrieved and express them in terms of CFUs. Compared to qPCR, which requires chemical
dissolution of the gum and bacterial lysis to determine the presence of genomic DNA from
bacteria trapped in chewed gums, agar-plating yields lower numbers of trapped bacteria, likely
because qPCR includes both dead and live bacteria  while agar-plating only reports viable
ones. Whereas agar plating yielded results that were independent of the bacterial strain involved,
Ct values obtained in qPCR were somewhat strain-dependent (Fig. 1B), possibly due to
differences in efficacy of lysis of the different strains and the relative efficiencies of the primer
pairs used. However, since calibration curves are applied to bacterial samples of unknown composition,
the small strain-dependent differences in Ct values were neglected and average calibration
curves were calculated and employed.
Both methods indicate a slow but significant decrease in bacterial trapping with increasing
chewing time in human volunteers after an initial maximum, regardless of the type of gum involved.
Whereas the initial gum bases are thus most adhesive to oral bacteria (Fig. 2) continued
chewing changes the structure of the gums, decreasing the hardness of the gum due to uptake
of salivary components  and release of water soluble components. This presumably affects
the adhesion of bacteria to the gum , causing a release of initially trapped, more weakly adhering
bacteria from the gum. Such a change in composition of trapped bacteria is supported
by the observation that the diversity of species trapped in chewed gum increases with chewing
time (Fig. 3A).
Despite an increasing diversity in species developing over time in chewed gums, there is a
gradual decrease in the number of bacteria trapped in chewed gum over time. This can be attributed
to a decrease in bacterial concentration in saliva during chewing, shown in earlier reports
. However, alternative explanations exist as well, especially since this decrease is far
Figure 4. SEM visualization of bacteria trapped in a piece of chewed gum. Scanning electron
micrograph of a bacterium (indicated by white arrow) trapped in a chewed gum piece of gum A. The scale bar
indicates 1 μm. more prominent for the numbers of CFUs retrieved than for the total numbers of bacteria
found by qPCR in chewed gum. This difference in decrease suggests that bacteria are killed
during their entrapment in the gum by sweeteners like xylitol, food preservatives or flavoring
agents like spearmint and peppermint, which are reported to have antimicrobial properties
Numbers of bacteria trapped in a chewed piece of gum amount around 108 depending on
the time of chewing and retrieval method. Although this number may be considered low, it
shows that when gum is chewed on a daily basis, it may contribute on the long-term to reduce
the bacterial load in the oral cavity, which is supported by observations that long-term studies
on the use of chewing gum cause a reduction in the amount of oral biofilm . Bacteria
trapped in chewed gum can originate either from the salivary microbiome or the adhering
microbiome on teeth, but also from the tongue, gums or oral mucosal surfaces from which we
did not sample. No DNA was detected in unchewed gum pieces. Saliva harbors up to 109 microorganisms
per ml before chewing [11,39]. Assuming a volume of saliva of around 1 ml in
the oral cavity, our results indicate that chewing of one piece of gum removes around 10% of
the oral microbial load in saliva. However, as our DGGE results pointed out, saliva does not
necessarily have to be the source of the bacteria found trapped in chewed gum. Making the alternative
assumption that all bacteria trapped in chewed gum come from the adhering microbiome,
we can place this number in further perspective by comparing it to the number of
bacteria removed by toothbrushing. Using a new, clean toothbrush without any toothpaste reportedly
removes around 108 CFUs per brush [39,40], which would put chewing of gum on par
with the mechanical action of a toothbrush. Moreover, also the mechanical action of floss wire
removes a comparable number of bacteria from the oral cavity than does chewing of a single
piece of gum, as we established in a simple pilot involving 3 human volunteers who used 5 cm
of floss wire (unpublished). Chewing however, does not necessarily remove bacteria from the
same sites of the dentition as does brushing or flossing, therefore its results may be noticeable
on a more long-term than those of brushing or flossing [7,19,41].
Our findings that chewing of gum removes bacteria from the oral cavity, may promote the
development of gum that selectively removes specific disease-related bacteria from the human
oral cavity, for instance by using porous type calcium carbonate . It is known that the key
to oral health is a balanced and diverse composition of the oral microbiome, although the exact
composition of what is tentatively called “the oral microbiome at health” is not known. Removal
of specific pathogens however, is directly in line with the general notion arising in dentistry
that oral diseases develop when the oral microbiome shifts its composition into a less diverse
direction . In this respect, a gradual removal of bacteria from the oral cavity through regular
removal of low numbers of pathogens by chewing gum is preferable to sudden ecological
shifts that can change the relationship between the oral microbiome and the host as another
potential cause of disease .
We would like to thank all volunteers for their cooperation in this study.
Conceived and designed the experiments: SWW HCMDM AMHJB. Performed the experiments:
SWW AMS BBG. Analyzed the data: SWW HCMDM AMS BBG AM HJB. Contributed
reagents/materials/analysis tools: DM AM. Wrote the paper: SWW HCMDM AMHJB.
1. Fritz D (2006) Formulation and production of chewing and bubble gum. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing
Ltd. 340 p.
2. Hetherington MM, Regan MF (2011) Effects of chewing gum on short-term appetite regulation in moderately
restrained eaters. Appetite 57: 475–482. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.06.008 PMID: 21718732
3. Scholey A (2004) Chewing gum and cognitive performance: a case of a functional food with function
but no food? Appetite 43: 215–216. PMID: 15458809
4. Smith A (2010) Effects of chewing gum on cognitive function, mood and physiology in stressed and
non-stressed volunteers. Nutr Neurosci 13: 7–16. doi: 10.1179/147683010X12611460763526 PMID:
5. Johnson AJ, Jenks R, Miles C, Albert M, Cox M (2011) Chewing gum moderates multi-task induced
shifts in stress, mood, and alertness. A re-examination. Appetite 56: 408–411. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.
2010.12.025 PMID: 21232569
6. Ly K, Milgrom P, Rothen M (2008) The potential of dental-protective chewing gum in oral health interventions.
J Am Dent Assoc 139: 553–563. PMID: 18451371
7. Imfeld T (1999) Chewing gum—facts and fiction: A review of gum-chewing and oral health. Crit Rev
Oral Biol Med 10: 405–419. PMID: 10759416
8. Birkhed D (1994) Cariologic aspects of xylitol and its use in chewing gum: a review. Acta Odontol
Scand 52: 116–127. PMID: 8048322
9. Milgrom P, Ly KA, Roberts MC, Rothen M, Mueller G, et al. (2006) Mutans Streptococci Dose Response
to Xylitol Chewing Gum. J Dent Res 85: 177–181. PMID: 16434738
10. Balakrishnan M, Simmonds RS, Tagg JR (2000) Dental caries is a preventable infectious disease. Aust
Dent J 45: 235–245. PMID: 11225524
11. Edgar M, Dawes C (2004) Saliva and oral health. 3rd ed. London: BDJ Books. 154 p.
12. Burt B (2006) The use of sorbitol-and xylitol-sweetened chewing gum in caries control. J Am Dent
Assoc 127: 190–196. PMID: 16521385
13. Dawes C, Tsang RW, Suelzle T (2001) The effects of gum chewing, four oral hygiene procedures, and
two saliva collection techniques, on the output of bacteria into human whole saliva. Arch Oral Biol 46:
625–632. PMID: 11369317
14. Mickenautsch S, Leal SC, Yengopal V, Bezerra AC, Cruvinel V (2007) Sugar-free chewing gum and
dental caries: a systematic review. J Appl Oral Sci 15: 83–88. PMID: 19089107
15. Sjögren K, Ruben J, Lingström P, Lundberg A, Birkhed D (2002) Fluoride and urea chewing gums in an
intra-oral experimental caries model. Caries Res 36: 64–69. PMID: 11961333
16. Imfeld T (2006) Chlorhexidine-containing chewing gum. Schweizer Monatsschrift fur Zahnmedizin
17. Greenberg M, Urnezis P, Tian M (2007) Compressed mints and chewing gum containing magnolia bark
extract are effective against bacteria responsible for oral malodor. J Agric Food Chem 55: 9465–9469.
18. Hanham A, Addy M (2001) The effect of chewing sugar-free gum on plaque regrowth at smooth and occlusal
surfaces. J Clin Periodontol 28: 255–257. PMID: 11284539
19. Kakodkar P, Mulay S (2011) Effect of sugar-free gum in addition to tooth brushing on dental plaque and
interdental debris. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 7: 64–69. PMID: 22013459
20. Van der Mei HC, Kamminga-Rasker HJ, de Vries J, Busscher HJ (2003) The influence of a hexametaphosphate-
containing chewing gum on the wetting ability of salivary conditioning films in vitro and in
vivo. J Clin Dent 14: 14–18. PMID: 12619265
21. Dige I, Raarup MK, Nyengaard JR, Kilian M, Nyvad B (2009) Actinomyces naeslundii in initial dental
biofilm formation. Microbiology 155: 2116–2126. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.027706-0 PMID: 19406899
22. Kreth J, Merritt J, Qi F (2009) Bacterial and host interactions of oral streptococci. DNA Cell Biol 28:
397–403. PMID: 19435424
23. Loesche WJ (1986) Role of Streptococcus mutans in human dental decay. Microbiol Rev 50: 353–
24. Diaz PI, Dupuy a K, Abusleme L, Reese B, Obergfell C, et al. (2012) Using high throughput sequencing
to explore the biodiversity in oral bacterial communities. Mol Oral Microbiol 27: 182–201. doi: 10.1111/
j.2041-1014.2012.00642.x PMID: 22520388
25. Syed SA, Loesche WJ (1972) Survival of human dental plaque flora in various transport media. Appl
Microbiol 24: 638–644. PMID: 4628799
Bacterial Trapping in Chewed Gum
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0117191 January 20, 2015 11 / 12
26. Pitt WG, Ross SA (2003) Ultrasound increases the rate of bacterial cell growth. Biotechnol Prog 19:
1038–1044. PMID: 12790676
27. Drakopoulou S, Terzakis S, Fountoulakis MS, Mantzavinos D, Manios T (2009) Ultrasound-induced inactivation
of gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria in secondary treated municipal wastewater.
Ultrason Sonochem 16: 629–634. doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2008.11.011 PMID: 19131265
28. Muyzer G, de Waal EC, Uitterlinden AG (1993) Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing
gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S
rRNA. Appl Env Microb 59: 695–700. PMID: 7683183
29. Lyons S, Griffen A, Leys E (2000) Quantitative real-time PCR for Porphyromonas gingivalis and total
bacteria. J Clin Microbiol 38:2362–2365.
30. Maeda H, Fujimoto C, Haruki Y, Maeda T, Kokeguchi S, et al. (2003) Quantitative real-time PCR using
TaqMan and SYBR Green for Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella
intermedia, tetQ gene and total bacteria. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 39: 81–86.
31. Ferreira AVB, Glass NL (1996) PCR from fungal spores after microwave treatment. Fungal Genet
Newsl 43: 25–26.
32. Weiger R, Ohle C (1997) Vital microorganisms in early supragingival dental plaque and in stimulated
human saliva. J Periodontal Res. 32: 233–240 PMID: 9089490
33. Rosenhek M, Macpherson LM, Dawes C (1993) The effects of chewing-gum stick size and duration of
chewing on salivary flow rate and sucrose and bicarbonate concentrations. Arch Oral Biol 38: 885–
891. PMID: 8279993
34. Stinson M, Levine M (1993) Modulation of intergeneric adhesion of oral bacteria by human saliva. Crit
Rev Oral Biol Med 4: 309–314. PMID: 8396997
35. Al-Ahmad A, Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad M, Auschill TM, Follo M, Braun G, et al. (2008) Effects of commonly
used food preservatives on biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutans in vitro. Arch Oral Biol 53: 765–
772. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2008.02.014 PMID: 18395697
36. Chaudhari LKD, Jawale BA, Sharma S, Sharma H, Kumar CDM, et al. (2012) Antimicrobial activity of
commercially available essential oils against Streptococcus mutans. J Contemp Dent Pract 13: 71–74.
37. Rasooli I, Shayegh S, Astaneh S (2009) The effect of Mentha spicata and Eucalyptus camaldulensis
essential oils on dental biofilm. Int J Dent Hyg 7: 196–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2009.00389.x
38. Keukenmeester RS, Slot DE, Putt MS, Van der Weijden GA (2013) The effect of sugar-free chewing
gum on plaque and clinical parameters of gingival inflammation: a systematic review. Int J Dent Hyg
39. Quirynen M, de Soete M, Pauwels M, Goossens K, Teughels W, et al. (2001) Bacterial survival rate on
tooth- and interdental brushes in relation to the use of toothpaste. J Clin Periodontol 28: 1106–1114.
40. Quirynen M, De Soete M (2003) Can toothpaste or a toothbrush with antibacterial tufts prevent toothbrush
contamination? J Periodontol 74: 312–322. PMID: 12710750
41. Mouton C, Scheinin A, Mäkinen K (1975) Effect on plaque of a xylitol-containing chewing-gum: A clinical
and biochemical study. Acta Odontol Scand 33: 33–40. PMID: 1063532
42. Yamanaka A, Saeki Y, Seki T, Kato T, Okuda K (2000) Adsorption of oral bacteria to porous type calcium
carbonate. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 41: 123–126. PMID: 11212584
43. Zarco MF, Vess TJ, Ginsburg GS (2012) The oral microbiome in health and disease and the potential
impact on personalized dental medicine. Oral Dis 18: 109–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2011.01851.
x PMID: 21902769
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0117191 January 20, 2015