ORAL MICROBES  The microorganisms that form the plaque/biofilm on the surfaces of the teeth are mainly Streptococcus mutans.  Other species :- › Streptococcus.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Week 12w This Week: Unknown Project
Advertisements

Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion Testing skill based learning
Antimicrobial Control Agents Mr. Shadi ALashi. Antimicrobial control agents Usually, microbial controls are used to avoid contamination of pure cultures,
Direct Sensitivity Performed when : * Gram stain shows large number of one type of reaction * To get quick result for serious cases * Used only.
Antibiotic Sensitivity Testing
ANTIBIOTIC By:Afnan Bakhsh. Sir Alexander Fleming (1881 –1955)  “One sometimes finds what one is not  looking for“ Penicillin He observed inhibition.
Practical’s. Practical 1 Learning objectives: By the end of the lesson you should be able to State the similarities and differences between animal, plant.
Bacterial lawn Learning objectives
A B C D E F G H I J L K Infectious Diseases Unit 2 Lesson 7 plan.
PHT 381 Lab # 9. MIC: It is the lowest concentration of the antimicrobial agent that inhibits the growth of the test organism but not necessarily kills.
PHT 381 Lab # 9. MIC : - It is the lowest concentration of the antimicrobial agent that inhibits the growth of the test organism but not necessarily kills.
Screening for new antibiotics
Determination of MIC by Agar Diffusion Method. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)  Definition: is the lowest concentration of an antimicrobial agent.
Microbiology and Cell Culture
Antibiotics AMANY NIAZY
Antibiotic susceptibility testing Modified Kirby-Bauer method
Mouthwash Effectiveness in Eliminating Bacteria By: Matthew Mancuso Department of Biology Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN
Chemical Agents that Affect Microbial Growth.  A chemical substance used in treatment of infectious disease. ◦ Bacteriocidal agents.  Kill bacterial.
Pathogenic Microorganisms. Bacteria  Fungi  Parasites.
PHT 381 Lab # 7. Antibiotic Sensitivity Testing Antibiotic sensitivity testing is used to determine the susceptibility of the microorganism to various.
PHT 381 Lab # 8. MIC: MIC: It is the lowest concentration of the antimicrobial agent that inhibits the growth of the test organism but not necessarily.
ANTIBIOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING AND DRUG RESISTANCE Rashmi S.
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH ALMIGHTY THE MOST COMPASSIONATE THE MERCIFUL.
Culturing Yeast Cells on Media. Pre Lab Definitions: Petri Dish: A round, shallow dish used to grow bacteria. Culture: To grow living organisms in a prepared.
LAB NO 8 LAB NO 8 Environmental Factors Affecting Microbial growth.
Mic 224 Lab 6 Streak Plate Technique and Antibiotic Sensitivity.
PHT 226 Lab number 7 Total and viable count of bacteria.
Study the effect of industrial antibiotics on microbial growth.
PHT 416 Lab no 10 Minimum Inhibitory Concentration [MIC]
KIRBY – BAUER MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION MINIMUM BACTERIOCIDAL CONCENTRATION.
Technologies + Future Outlook Microbiology. Since we have started to harness the amazing power of bacteria, the field of microbiology has become much.
313 PHT LAB#1 ☠ Lab coat & marker. ☠ No eating, drinking, ☠ Benches disinfection. ☠ Inoculating loop sterilization. ☠ Aseptic technique. ☠ Discarded.
ANTIBIOTICS SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING
Methods for detecting resistance Goal: To determine whether organism expresses resistances to agents potentially used for therapy Designed to determine.
testing sensitivity of the pathogen to specific antibiotics in order to choose best antimicrobial therapy. judged by determination of MIC and MBC. judged.
Dr. Shahzadi Tayyaba Hashmi
Pathogenic Microorganisms. Bacteria  Fungi  Parasites.
GK-12 Saturday Workshop December 3, Kirby-Bauer Method The Kirby-Bauer method is the most widely used antibiotic susceptibility test in determining.
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH ALMIGHTY THE MOST COMPASSIONATE THE MERCIFUL.
Susceptibility (Sensitivity) Testing: Results Pharmaceutical Microbiology – Practical Course Semester One_ Sensitivity Results & MIC Broth Dilution/
Effects of physical, chemical and biological agents on bacteria Experiment 4.
PHT 226 Lab no 9. MIC: It is the lowest concentration of the antimicrobial agent that inhibits the growth of the test organism but not necessarily kills.
Brian Freyvogel Central Catholic High School Grade 9.
Antibiotics Basmah almaarik
Antibiotic sensitivity
Microbiological Tests
Lab: 6 ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY TESTING
"Don't forget to take a handful of our complimentary antibiotics on your way out“
Lab # 1. Antimicrobial Therapy  Natural antibiotic agents:  Produced by microorganisms:  Penicillium notatum – penicillin  Semi-synthetic antibiotic.
Chapter 42 Antimicrobial Sensitivity Testing
Culturing Bacteria Growth Media
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST)
1College of Dentistry, Baghdad University
ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY
22 –Bacteriostatic Compounds, and Antibiotic Resistance
Antibiotic Sensitivity
Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing
Antibiogram By:Dr. S. S. Khoramrooz In the name of God
Antibiotics AMANY NIAZY
Agar diffusion method Basmah almaarik
Antibiotic Sensitivity
Antimicrobial Abilities of Top-Selling Mouthwashes
ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE
ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING
Streptococcus pneumoniae
Antibiotic susceptibility testing
Lab# 8 Kirby-Bauer test BCH462 [practical].
Antibiotics AMANY NIAZY
Antibiotics AMANY NIAZY
API 20 E System & Antibiotic susceptibility test
Presentation transcript:

ORAL MICROBES  The microorganisms that form the plaque/biofilm on the surfaces of the teeth are mainly Streptococcus mutans.  Other species :- › Streptococcus mitis › Streptococcus sanguis.  If not taken care of, via brushing or flossing and rinsing, the plaque can turn into tartar (its hardened form) and lead to gingivitis or periodontal disease.

Various streptococci in a biofilm in the oral cavity (electron microscope)

Gram staining of Streptococcus mutan

MOUTH RINSES  Mouth rinse is a product used to enhance oral hygiene.  Antibacterial agent in the mouth rinse can kill the bacterial plaque causing caries, gingivitis, and bad breath.  Active ingredients :-  Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX),  Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC),  Thymol (THY).

 To compare the antibacterial effect of the commercially available mouth rinses towards mixed three oral bacteria commonly associated with dental caries. › Streptococcus mutans › Streptococcus mitis › Streptococcus sanguinis).

SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTS (AST) SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTS (AST) CULTURE PREPARATIONS MINIMAL INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION TEST (MIC) MINIMAL BACTERICIDAL CONCENTRATION DETERMINATIONS (MBC)

3 Streptococcus spp. from ATTC were used in this study. BHI media was used to revived & culture the microorganisms. Take the bacteria using sterile cotton swab & make a suspension. Read OD Mixed 3 suspension of bacteria. Take 100ul suspension and & place on the BHI agar

Using hockey stick spread the suspension using lawn method Incubated 24 hrs at 37°C Bacteria ready to use

 The mouth rinses were tested for sensitivity using Kirby- Bauer susceptibility test with principle of agar disc diffusion. Let it dry at RT Repeat procedure 2 & 3 until total solution diffused in a disk 100ul Prepare disk containing mouth rinses using whatman sterile paper disk size 6mm Pipette 20ul mouth rinse into the disk Let it completely dry & ready to use

Place the disk on the agar using sterile forcep Fresh bacterial suspension Using sterile cotton swab culture the bacteria on BHI agar Inubated 24hrs at 37 oC Measure & record the results

 Using 96 wells broth micro-dilution assay was used to determine the minimal inhibition concentrations (MIC).

Mouth rinse (500 ul) Discard Mixed bacteria suspension Mouth Rinse (X) Mouth Rinse (X) The first tube with no bacteria growth (no turbid suspension) is the dilution containing the concentration of the mouth rinse which is refered MIC. Incubated 37ºc (24 hour)

 The Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) is the lowest concentration of antibiotic required to kill the germ. MBC Techniques

Flow chart MIC & MBC

DiscInhibition Zones (cm) 0.12 % CHX2.73 cm 0.05 % CPC2.27 cm THY Resistant 0.12 % CHX - Standard(+ve control) 2.53 cm D.H2O (-ve controll) Resistant Table 1: Sizes of inhibition zones that were present after 24 hour. The susceptibility of active compound was shown by the formation of clear zone of growth inhibition around the paper discs. AST

 It was clearly shows that CHX and CPC containing mouth rinse are able to prevent the growth of the mixed oral bacteria at the tested concentrations. THY showed less susceptibility effect when compared with blank control and positive control (fig.AST).  The greater the size of inhibition zones, the greater the antibacterial potency of the mouth rinse.

MIC & MBC HIGHER CONCENTRATION LOWER CONCENTRATION TURBID -  HIGH BACTERIA

MIC & MBC Figure MBC: Minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) Test. The concentration on the agar that shows no bacteria growth was recorded as the MBC of the mouth rinse – agar label as tube 3 shown NO GROWTH (MBC)

The MICs and MBCs for CHX and CPC were determined as low as % w/v (tube 3) and % w/w respectively. This showed that CHX and CPC exhibited profound antibacterial activity on selected common oral bacteria as demonstrated by the very low MIC and MBC values. THY showed its antibacterial effect only at higher concentration (>50 % v/v). MIC & MBC

 The present study showed that mouth rinses vary significantly in their capability to inhibits and kill oral bacteria.  The CHX containing mouth rinse demonstrated superior antibacterial activity toward selected mixed tested bacteria followed by CPC containing mouth rinse.  This implies that the incorporation of CHX and CPC in mouth rinses are better than that containing THY.

 A.R. Fathilah and Z.H.A Rahim. J. Oral Sci., 45 : (2003).  A.R. Fathilah, Y. Othman and Z.H.A Rahim. J. Oral Sci., 48 (2) : (2006).  A.R. Fathilah, Z.H.A. Rahim, Y. Othman and M. Yusoff. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 12(6) : (2009).  T. Nalina and Z.H.A. Rahim. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 9 : (2007).  Pan P. C., Harper S., Ricci-Nittel D., Lux R. and Shi W. J. Den 38, S1 S16-S20 (2010) This study was financially supported by the Department of Oral Biology, University of Malaya Grant (BM271) All Staff & student Oral biology Department