==== Front J Appl Oral Sci J Appl Oral Sci jaos Journal of Applied Oral Science 1678-7757 1678-7765 Faculdade De Odontologia De Bauru - USP 37283356 00426 10.1590/1678-7757-2022-0445 Original Article Effect of anaerobic or/and microaerophilic atmosphere on microcosm biofilm formation and tooth demineralization https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9331-1531 BRAGA Aline Silva Formal analysis (Equal); Funding acquisition (Equal); Investigation (Equal); Methodology (Equal); Writing – original draft (Equal); Writing – review & editing (Equal) 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5041-1615 Rafaela Ricci KIM Funding acquisition (Equal); Methodology (Equal) 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6413-5348 MAGALHÃES Ana Carolina Formal analysis (Equal); Funding acquisition (Equal); Project administration (Equal); Supervision (Equal); Writing – original draft (Equal); Writing – review & editing (Equal) 1 1 Universidade de São Paulo Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru Departamento de Ciências Biológicas Bauru SP Brasil Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Bauru, SP, Brasil. Corresponding address: Ana Carolina Magalhães. Universidade de São Paulo - Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru - Departamento de Ciências Biológicas - Al. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75 - Bauru - SP - Zip Code: 17012-901 -Brasil. Phone/Fax. + 55 14 32358497. e-mail: acm@usp.br, acm@fob.usp.br Editor: Linda Wang Associate Editor: Karin Hermana Neppelenbroek Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest. Data availability statement All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. 02 6 2023 2023 31 e2022044517 11 2022 13 3 2023 25 4 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Microcosm biofilms can reproduce the complexity of a dental biofilm. However, different forms of cultivation have been used. The impact of the culture atmosphere on the development of microcosm biofilms and their potential to cause tooth demineralization has not yet been deeply studied. Objective This study analyzes the effects of three experimental cultivation models (microaerophile vs. anaerobiosis vs. experimental mixed) on the colony-forming units (CFU) of the cariogenic microorganisms and tooth demineralization. Methodology 90 bovine enamel and 90 dentin specimens were distributed into different atmospheres: 1) microaerophilia (5 days, 5% CO2); 2) anaerobiosis (5 days, jar); 3) mixed (2 days microaerophilia and 3 days anaerobiosis), which were treated with 0.12% chlorhexidine (positive control – CHX) or Phosphate-Buffered Saline (negative control – PBS) (n=15). Human saliva and McBain’s saliva containing 0.2% sucrose were used for microcosm biofilm formation, for 5 days. From the second day to the end of the experiment, the specimens were treated with CHX or PBS (1x1 min/day). Colony-forming units (CFU) were counted, and tooth demineralization was analyzed using transverse microradiography (TMR). Data were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s or Sidak’s test (p<0.05). Results CHX was able to reduce total microorganism’s CFU compared to PBS (differences of 0.3–1.48 log10 CFU/mL), except for anaerobiosis and microaerophilia in enamel and dentin biofilm, respectively. In the case of dentin, no effect of CHX on Lactobacillus spp. was observed. CHX significantly reduced enamel demineralization compared to PBS (78% and 22% reductions for enamel and dentin, respectively). Enamel mineral loss did not differ when compared with the other atmospheres; however, the enamel lesion depth was greater under anaerobiosis. Dentin mineral loss was lower under anaerobiosis when compared with the other atmospheres. Conclusion The type of atmosphere has, in general, little influence on the cariogenic ability of the microcosm biofilm. Biofilms Dental caries Dental enamel Dentin Microorganisms São Paulo Research Foundation2019/21797-0 São Paulo Research Foundation2019/01730-9 São Paulo Research Foundation2017/17249-2 Funding ==== Body pmcIntroduction Dental caries is a multifactorial disease of great clinical relevance, which occurs due to the presence of a biofilm in dysbiosis, induced by the frequent ingestion of sugar, which is rich in acidogenic, aciduric, and extracellular polysaccharide-producing microorganisms. These microorganisms can metabolize different types of sugars from the diet, but mainly sucrose, producing acids that change the biofilm pH and cause tooth demineralization.1-3 The most common microorganisms involved in the development of dental caries are Streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli.4,5 Due to the high degree of controlled conditions and reproducibility, in vitro models have been well accepted to mimic cariogenic biofilms.6 In vitro models can be produced from monospecies (namely, S. mutans) or multispecies (namely, S. mutans + Lactobacillus casei) biofilms by using microbial strains or from microorganisms derived from human saliva or dental biofilms, called microcosm biofilm.7,8 Microcosm biofilms are able to reproduce the complexity of a dental biofilm.9-11 However, different forms of cultivation have been used comprising 24-well microtiter plates, where specimens can be attached to the bottom of the wells;12,13 the application of meshes for the retention of microorganisms;14 or the suspension of specimens to prevent the formation of biofilm only by microorganism precipitation.15 Some microcosm biofilm models use artificial mouths for programmed or continuous nutrient flow.6,16 Studies also differ with respect to the sucrose concentrations and form of exposure, which can be either continuous or intermittent.17,18 Cultivation time can vary from 2–14 days depending on the selected response variables.13,19 Incubation atmosphere is another important factor,13 which can vary between microaerophilia (5%–10% CO2);12,14,16,19 and anaerobiosis with the use of jars, candles, or anaerobic cabins (O2<0.1% and 5%–10% CO2; 10% CO2, 10% H2, and 80% N2).17,20 Oral dental biofilms are often subjected to fluxes of environmental conditions, such as fast pH challenges, nutrient abundance or scarcity, different carbohydrates exposures, and variations in redox potentials due to atmospheric conditions. These environmental parameters can define the biofilms microbiome21,22 and, consequently, the cariogenic potential of biofilm.10,23 Despite this wide methodological variation between studies, the impact of the culture atmosphere on the development of microcosm biofilms and their potential to cause tooth demineralization has not yet been deeply studied. Therefore, this study aims to compare the three experimental cultivation models (microaerophile vs. anaerobiosis vs. experimental mixed) on the colony forming units (CFU) of the cariogenic microorganisms and tooth demineralization. The null hypothesis is that the type of atmospheric do not influence the S. mutans and Lactobacillus spp. colonies and development of dental caries lesions (tooth demineralization). Methodology Saliva Collection This study was approved by the local ethics committee (CAAE: 35403320.1.0000.5417). The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. After the signed consent, ten healthy participants (age: 23.8 ± 3 years old; eight women and two men) donated stimulated saliva for 10 min during morning time, according to the inclusion criteria: (1) normal salivary flow (stimulated saliva flow > 1 mL min and non-stimulated saliva flow >0.3 mL min), (2) with a previous history of caries but no active caries, (3) without gingivitis/periodontitis, and (4) without the ingestion of antibiotics for three months prior to the experiment. Prior to the day of collection, the donors did not brush their teeth. Furthermore, they were not allowed to ingest food or drinks within the last 2 h before saliva collection.24 Saliva pool was diluted in glycerol (70% saliva and 30% glycerol), and aliquots of 1 mL were stored at −80 °C.25 Tooth specimen preparation Bovine teeth were obtained from food manufacturing industry (Frigol S. A., Lençóis Paulista, São Paulo, SP, Brazil). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Research (CEUA, Number 005/2020) following the guidelines provided by the National Council for Control of Animal Experimentation. In total, 90 bovine enamel and 90 bovine root dentin specimens (4 mm × 4 mm) were polished and evaluated regarding the average roughness (Ra; contact profilometer Mahr, Göttingen, Germany)24 to standardize the tooth surfaces for biofilm growth. The specimens’ surface was divided in three-thirds, and two-thirds of the surface was covered with red nail polish (Estreia-Colorama, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil) to create two sound areas. All lateral areas were also covered with red nail polish, which is needed for the transverse microradiography (TMR) analysis. Subsequently, the specimens were sterilized by exposure to ethylene oxide and randomly distributed into three groups and two subgroups (n=15) according to their mean Ra values (Enamel Ra: 0.140 ± 0.029 µm and dentin Ra: 0.288 ± 0.056 µm). Specimens with Ra values below 0.100 µm or above 0.300 µm for enamel and below 0.200 µm and above 0.400 µm for dentin were excluded from the study. This was done to provide similar mean baseline Ra values among the groups. Study conditions and sample size calculation The experimental models differed regarding the atmosphere, namely, microaerophilia (greenhouse with 5% Carbonic Dioxide – CO2), anaerobiosis (greenhouse with jar and Microbiology Anaerocult A [Merck, Darmstadt, Germany] < 0.5% O2), and mixed (two days in the microaerophilic model and three days in the anaerobic model). Under each atmospheric condition, half of the specimens were treated with Chlorhexidine (PerioGard - 0.12% CHX), and the other half were treated with Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS). The entire experiment was performed in biological triplicates (n=5 each), with a final n=15 (Table 1). The sample size was calculated using the website http://powerandsamplesize.com, based on a previous study that indicated an integrated mineral loss (∆Z) of 3237.1 vol%. µm (SD: 781.0 µm) for CHX (PerioGard) versus ∆Z 6151.3 vol%. µm (SD: 1084.5) for the PBS group,18 under a power of 80% and α error of 5% (the size calculation was n=2). Table 1 The tested atmospheres conditions and treatments in this experiment   Atmospheres conditions Microaerophilia Greenhouse with 5% CO2 Anaerobiosis Greenhouse with jar and Microbiology Anaerocult A (<0.5% O2) Mixed 2 days in the microaerophilia and 3 days anaerobiosis Subgroups Company/City-Country Composition/Concentration PerioGard (positive control) Colgate-Palmolive/São Paulo-Brazil Active component: 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate and sorbitol. PBS (negative control) - - The groups were divided in subgroups (n = 15). Preparation of artificial saliva and microcosm biofilm formation McBain artificial saliva was prepared according to study by Braga et al.11 (2021). In a 24-wells microtiter plate, each enamel or dentin specimen was exposed to 1.5 mL of inoculum (human saliva-glycerol + McBain saliva, 1:50) for 8 h. After the first 8 h, the inoculum was removed, the specimens washed with PBS (5 s) and then exposed to 1.5 mL fresh medium (McBain artificial saliva) with 0.2% sucrose for 16 h, in the first 24 h. From the second to the fifth day, McBain saliva with 0.2% sucrose was replaced once a day. Before medium replacement, half of the specimens were treated daily with 0.12% CHX/PerioGard (positive control) and the other half with PBS (negative control) for 1 min (v=1 mL/well). The experiment was performed at 37 °C and each plate was stored under different atmospheric conditions. Colony-forming units (CFU) counting Biofilm was washed once with PBS to remove unattached or dead bacteria. Subsequently, the biofilm was removed from the surface in microtubes containing 1 mL of 0.89% NaCl solution by sonication (Sonifier Cell Disruptor B-30, Branson, Danbury, USA) for 30 s at 20 W. For CFU counting, 100 μL of the microbial suspension were diluted to 10-5 and spread on petri dishes (25 µL/dish) containing three types of agar: 1) Brain Heart Infusion (BHI, Kasvi, Curitiba, Brazil) for total microorganisms; 2) Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe (MRS – Kasvi, Curitiba, Brazil) supplemented with 0.13% glacial acetic acid for total lactobacilli;26 and 3) SB-20M for mutans streptococci (S. mutans and S. sobrinus).27,28 The plates were then incubated under the same conditions as the microcosm biofilm. The plates from mixed atmosphere group were incubated separately using two atmospheres, half under anaerobiosis conditions and the other half of plates under microaerophilic conditions. After 48 h, CFU was computed and transformed to log10 CFU/mL. Transverse microradiography (TMR) All tooth specimens were transversally sectioned and polished to obtain slices of 80–100 µm (enamel) and 100–120 µm (dentin) thickness.21 The slices were fixed together with an aluminum calibration step wedge. Ethylene glycol (Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany) was applied on the dentin specimens for 24 h to avoid shrinkage.29 A microradiograph was obtained using an X-ray generator (Softex, Tokyo, Japan) on a glass plate at 20 kV and 20 mA (at a distance of 42 cm) for 13 min. The glass plates (high-precision photo plate; Konica Minolta Inc., Tokyo, Japan) were processed and analyzed using a transmitted light microscope fitted with a 20x objective (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany), a CCD (Charge-Coupled Device camera; Canon, Tokyo, Japan), and a computer. Two images per specimen were acquired using data acquisition (version 2012) and interpreted using the Inspektor Research System BV calculation software (version 2006) (Amsterdam, Netherlands). The mineral content was calculated based on the assumption of 87% volume of mineral content for sound enamel and 50% mineral content for sound dentin. Lesion depth (LD, µm) the integrated mineral loss (∆Z, vol. µm), and the average mineral loss over the lesion depth (R, vol%) were obtained. Statistical analysis Data were statistically compared using the GraphPad Prism software (San Diego, CA, USA). Distribution and homogeneity were tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Bartlett’s tests, respectively. A two-way ANOVA (factors: atmospheres and treatments), was applied, followed by Tukey’s or Sidak’s test. The level of significance was set at 5%. Results CFU counting Enamel Table 2 presents the means for the CFU (log10/mL) for the total microorganisms, Lactobacillus spp., and mutans streptococci from the microcosm biofilm cultivated under various atmospheric growth conditions on the enamel specimens. Table 2 Colony-forming units counting (log10 CFU/mL) of total microorganisms, Lactobacillus spp. and mutans streptococci from microcosm biofilm produced on enamel specimens Groups Subgroups Total microorganisms Lactobacillus spp. mutans streptococci Microaerophilia CHX 6.38 ± 0.52Aa 5.87 ± 0.86Aab 6.41 ± 0.36Aa PBS 7.37 ± 0.43Ba 7.08 ± 0.11Bab 8.05 ± 0.12Ba Anaerobiosis CHX 7.35 ± 0.47Ab 6.22 ± 0.39Abc 6.53 ± 0.33Aab PBS 7.68 ± 0.71Aab 7.46 ± 0.21Bbc 7.35 ± 0.43Bb Mixed-Anaerobic CHX 7.15 ± 0.59Ab 5.69 ± 0.47Aa 6.88 ± 0.54Ab PBS 7.91 ± 0.25Bb 7.17 ± 0.10Ba 7.74 ± 0.11Bab Mixed-Microaerophilia CHX 7.20 ± 0.57Ab 6.31 ± 0.32Ac 6.50 ± 0.81Aab PBS 7.84 ± 0.18Bb 7.70 ± 0.07Bc 7.72 ± 0.09Bab Capital letters show significant difference between treatments, for each type of atmosphere (Example: comparation between rows 3 and 4). Lowercase letters show significant difference between atmospheres, for each type of treatment (Example: comparation of between CHX rows 2, 4, 6 and 8). For total microorganisms, two-way ANOVA was applied followed by Tukey's test (treatment p<0.0001, atmosphere p<0.0001 and interaction p=0.0481). For Lactobacillus spp., two-way ANOVA was applied, followed by the Sidak’s test (treatment p<0.0001, atmosphere p<0.0001, no interaction, p=0.7677). For mutans steptococci, two-way ANOVA was applied, followed by the Tukey’s test (treatment p<0.0001, atmosphere p=0.0041 and interaction p=0.0039). For the total microorganisms, all atmospheres, except the anaerobic condition, were able to differentiate CHX from PBS (p<0.0001), displaying the antimicrobial effect of the CHX. A minor difference in the growth of total microorganisms was seen in microaerophilia compared to the other atmospheres (p<0.0001), which did not differ from each other (anaerobic and mixed) regardless of the treatment. Regarding the Lactobacillus spp. and mutans streptococci CFU, all atmospheres were able to differentiate CHX from PBS (p<0.0001), indicating the antimicrobial effect of CHX. Lower growth of Lactobacillus spp. was observed under a mixed atmosphere (anaerobic CFU) than in the other conditions (p<0.0001), except for the microaerophilic condition. The microaerophilic atmosphere was similar to the anaerobic atmosphere but displayed lower Lactobacillus spp. growth when compared with the mixed atmosphere (microaerophilic CFU), which did not differ from the anaerobic and mixed-anaerobic CFU. Regarding mutans streptococci, lower microbial growth was observed in the microaerophilic atmosphere (p=0.0041), which was similar to the mixed atmosphere (microaerophilic CFU). However, the microaerophilic atmosphere significantly differed from the anaerobic atmosphere when considering PBS and from the mixed atmosphere (anaerobic CFU) when considering CHX. Dentin Table 3 displays the mean for the CFU (log10/mL) for the total microorganisms, Lactobacillus spp., and mutans streptococci from a microcosm biofilm cultivated under different atmospheric growth conditions on dentin specimens. Table 3 Colony-forming unit counting (log10 CFU mL) of total microorganisms, Lactobacillus spp. and mutans streptococci from microcosm biofilm produced on dentin specimens Groups Subgroups Total microorganisms Lactobacillus spp. mutans streptococci Microaerophilia CHX 7.62 ± 0.22Aa 6.95 ± 0.46Aab 7.12 ± 0.39Aa PBS 7.74 ± 0.11Aa 7.06 ± 0.38Aab 7.63 ± 0.19Ba Anaerobiosis CHX 7.45 ± 0.38Aa 7.13 ± 0.46Ab 7.24± 0.35Aa PBS 7.94 ± 0.22Ba 7.51 ± 0.20Ab 7.60 ± 0.19Ba Mixed-Anaerobic CHX 7.21 ± 0.53Aa 7.25 ± 0.59Ab 7.05 ± 0.35Aa PBS 7.84 ± 0.16Ba 7.33 ± 0.51Ab 7.69 ± 0.21Ba Mixed-Microaerophilia CHX 7.49 ± 0.28Aa 6.76 ± 0.36Aa 7.21 ± 0.41Aa PBS 7.80 ± 0.16Ba 6.87 ± 0.56Aa 7.77 ± 0.22Ba Capital letters show significant difference between treatments, for each type of atmosphere (Example: comparation between rows 3 and 4). Lowercase letters show significant difference between atmospheres, for each type of treatment (Example: comparation of between CHX rows 2, 4, 6 and 8). For total microorganisms, two-way ANOVA was applied, followed by Tukey's test (treatment p<0.0001, atmosphere p<0.1222 and interaction p=0.0099). For Lactobacillus spp., two-way ANOVA was applied, followed by the Tukey’s test (treatment p=0.0602, atmosphere p=0.0002, no interaction, p=0.5955). For mutans streptococci, two-way ANOVA was applied, followed by the Tukey’s test (treatment p<0.0001, atmosphere p=0.4706 and interaction p=0.4637). For the total microorganisms CFU, all atmospheres, except microaerophilia, were able to differentiate between CHX and PBS (p<0.0001), showing the antimicrobial effect of CHX. When the atmospheres were compared, no differences were observed regardless of the treatment (p<0.1222). Regarding Lactobacillus spp. CFU, none of the atmospheres was able to differentiate the effect of CHX and PBS (p=0.0602). When comparing the atmospheres, the mixed atmosphere (microaerophilic CFU) presented lower growth of Lactobacillus spp. than the other atmospheres (p=0.0002), except for microaerophilia. In contrast, all atmospheres significantly showed differences between CHX and PBS on mutans streptococci growth (p<0.0001), whereas no differences were observed when comparing the atmospheres regardless of the treatment (p=0.4706). TMR analysis Tables 4 and 5 present the TMR data for the enamel and dentin specimens, respectively. Figures 1 and 2 display representative TMR images of the enamel and dentin from each group, respectively. Table 4 Mean ± SD of the integrated mineral loss (ΔZ, vol%. μm), lesion depth (LD, μm) and average mineral loss (R, vol%) of the enamel specimens Groups Subgroups DZ LD R     (vol%.mm) (mm) (vol%) Microaerophilia CHX 1035.62 ± 561.38Aa 37.89 ± 15.46Aa 27.92 ± 8.16Aa PBS 7223.33 ± 1206.52Ba 119.84 ± 20.27Ba 59.14 ± 3.11Ba Anaerobiosis CHX 1702.22 ± 1056.60Aa 61.19 ± 24.22Ab 30.57 ± 10.52Aa PBS 6555.00 ± 1681.07Ba 134.22 ± 28.45Bb 54.71 ± 4.33Ba Mixed CHX 1436.11 ± 495.77Aa 49.46 ± 13.01Aab 23.94 ± 2.05Aa PBS 7246.11 ± 350.14Ba 119.54 ± 8.47Bab 59.66 ±2.06Ba Capital letters show significant difference between treatments, for each type of atmosphere (Example: comparation between rows 3 and 4). Lowercase letters show significant difference between atmospheres, for each type of treatment (Example: comparation of between CHX rows 2, 4, 6 and 8). For DZ, two-way ANOVA was applied, followed by Tukey’s test (treatment p<0.0001; atmosphere p=0.7627 and interaction p=0.0168). For lesion depth, two-way ANOVA was applied, followed by Tukey’s test (treatment p<0.0001, atmosphere p=0.0148 and interaction p=0.6412). For the average mineral loss, two-way ANOVA was applied, followed by Sidak’s test (treatment p<0.0001, atmosphere p=0.7709, interaction, p=0.0284). Table 5 Mean ± SD of the integrated mineral loss (ΔZ, vol%. μm), lesion depth (LD, μm) and average mineral loss (R, vol%) of the dentin specimens Groups Subgroups DZ LD R     (vol%.mm) (mm) (vol%) Microaerophilia CHX 4389.2 ± 603.5Aa 159.2 ± 13.7Aa 29.2 ± 3.4Aa PBS 5768.5 ± 523.95Ba 184.2 ± 24.5Ba 31.5 ± 2.9Aa Anaerobiosis CHX 4242.3 ± 581.68Aa 144.0 ± 14.0Aa 27.8 ±2.2Ab PBS 5149.6 ± 551.40Bb 194.3 ± 28.7Ba 28.7 ± 3.1Ab Mixed CHX 4744.3 ± 472.69Aa 160.3 ± 18.4Aa 29.0 ± 2.3Aa PBS 5692.5 ± 243.04Ba 183.1 ± 13.2Ba 31.6 ± 2.5Ba Capital letters show significant difference between treatments, for each type of atmosphere (Example: comparation between rows 3 and 4). Lowercase letters show significant difference between atmospheres, for each type of treatment (Example: comparation of between CHX rows 2, 4, 6 and 8). For DZ, two-way ANOVA was applied, followed by Tukey’s test (treatment p<0.0001; atmosphere p=0.0034 and interaction p=0.2346). For lesion depth, two-way ANOVA was applied, followed by Tukey’s test (treatment p<0.0001, atmosphere p=0.809 and interaction p=0.0614). For average mineral loss, two-way ANOVA was applied followed by Tukey’s test (treatment p=0.0039, atmosphere p=0.0093, interaction, p=0.4243). Figure 1 Transverse microradiography representative pictures (20×) of an enamel specimen from each group: Microaerophilia; Anaerobiosis; Mixed, after treatment with Chlorhexidine (CHX) or PBS. The arrows show the lesion area. Specimens belonging to PBS showed cavitation, regardless of the atmosphere. Specimens treated with CHX showed shallow lesion Figure 2 Transverse microradiography representative pictures (20×) of a dentin specimen from each group: Microaerophilia; Anaerobiosis; Mixed, after treatment with Chlorhexidine (CHX) or PBS. The arrows show the lesion area. Mixed-PBS was the only one not showing some cavitation of the dentin lesion Chlorhexidine reduced enamel demineralization in all the tested atmospheres (p<0.0001). Similar carious lesions were produced in enamel in all atmospheres (p=0.7627), except for microaerophilia, which induced a shallow lesion compared to the anaerobic atmosphere, both similar to the mixed atmosphere (Table 4 and Figure 1). Chlorhexidine was also able to reduce dentin demineralization in all tested atmospheres (p < 0.0001), except the average mineral loss in the case of microaerophilia and anaerobiosis. Microaerophilic and mixed atmospheres produced similar carious lesions in dentin with greater mineral loss (integrated and mean) than those produced under anaerobiosis (lesion depth p = 0.0809; average mineral loss p = 0.0093) (Table 5 and Figure 2). Discussion Although the microcosm biofilm model is a well-established practice, there are several differences between the protocols, as for example the growth atmosphere. Accordingly, the atmosphere that better represents oral conditions needs to be investigated. This study did not aim to validate a type of atmosphere based on the oral environment since no comparison was made between the tested protocol and in vivo conditions. This study compared three experimental cultivation models (microaerophile vs. anaerobiosis vs. experimental mixed) on the colony-forming units (CFU) of the cariogenic microorganisms and tooth demineralization. Some minor differences were observed among the atmospheric conditions, but they were able to produce very similar carious lesions in both enamel and dentin. Furthermore, most atmospheres were able to differentiate CHX vs. PBS, which is an essential outcome since the antimicrobial effect of CHX has been well established.30 From a microbiological perspective, we selected CFU counting – a well-established, reproducible, and simple quantitative method31– to analyze the effect of the atmosphere on the microorganisms from the microcosm biofilm. This method, however, is not as precise and sensitive as the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) method and does not provide an overview of the entire microbiota as microbiome.32 Based on the findings of the CFU counting, a lower number of Lactobacillus spp. and mutans streptococci was observed under the microaerophilic than in the anaerobic environment, especially for enamel. The differences of 0.2 log10 CFU/mL might be clinically irrelevant; in fact, they were not significant when TMR data were taken into account. Both bacteria were chosen because they are highly established cariogenic species.33 A limitation of the study is that other species, which might be present in the microcosm biofilm, were not examined. Therefore, future studies using “omics” are desirable, especially to understand the reason that CHX did not reduce Lactobacillus spp. in microcosm biofilms produced on dentin. Interestingly, the number of total microorganisms was reduced under anaerobic conditions for CHX. This led to speculations regarding the contribution of other species. Herein, it is important to consider that the term total microorganism does not include species that require supplementation for their growth on BHI agar. The association between lactobacilli and dental caries dates back to one century ago.34 In another study, 0.2% Chlorhexidine, used in an in situ model, was not able to reduce the CFU counting for lactobacilli on dentin specimens when compared with the control.35 The author suggested that dentin can act as a “shelter” for this bacterium against the action of CHX.35 The outside atmosphere had little impact on the microbiological analysis of the microcosm biofilms because the biofilm itself can create its own atmosphere, with the deeper layers rich in strictly anaerobic microorganisms and the superficial layers rich in facultative microorganisms.36 Although dental biofilms are composed primarily of obligate anaerobe species with preferential growth in the presence of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), these microorganisms may be protected from the toxic effects of oxygen, enabling their growth under microaerophilic conditions.10 Notably, the findings of this study cannot be extrapolated to monospecies or other multispecies models. Despite knowing the microbiological composition of the biofilm, it was clear by the tooth lesion analysis that even in the presence of different species, the set of metabolic products released into the biofilms under different atmospheres was able to create similar artificial carious lesions. Metabolome analysis could be used to better discuss the results; however, the most important response variable is related to the tooth (TMR data). Regarding enamel demineralization, the mineral loss (integrated and mean) was similar among different atmospheres; however, the anaerobic condition induced a deeper lesion, showing that, in this case, the acids could have penetrated deeper into the environment, which may be related to the metabolic profile of the biofilm. While dentin lesion depth was similar among the atmospheres, dentin mineral loss (integrated and mean) was lower for anaerobic than for microaerophilic and mixed atmospheres, which behaved similarly. Therefore, as previously discussed, the metabolic products (primarily acids) induced by the anaerobic biofilm may have been neutralized by the organic content of the dentin.3 The mixed biofilm model was first performed by Braga, et al.11 (2021) but in a different sequence: the first three days in an anaerobic and the last two days in a microaerophilic atmosphere. In their study, the biofilm model was able to differentiate CHX from PBS. The results of this study warrant further metabolome analysis to better explain the slight differences found in CFU counting and TMR analysis and to signalize that the mixed model can be applied in the future. For both tissues, especially the enamel, lesions induced in the absence of treatment (PBS group) were highly demineralized, and most of them were cavitated (about 85–100% for enamel and 31–55% for dentin), with no differences among the atmospheres. It is suggested that the higher cavitation of enamel is due to its lower organic content compared to dentin, which plays an important role in the modulation of de-remineralization progression. Also, the percentage of prevention fraction of CHX was much higher for enamel (~78%) than for dentin (~22%), which may be related to the high degree of de-remineralization of the enamel and the type of interaction of CHX with the biofilm, in agreement with previous reports.16,18 Our results provide new information about the effect of the atmosphere on microcosm biofilm growth and its potential to induce tooth demineralization. These different protocols should be analyzed in the future to identify their impact on the results and interpretation of metabolome. Moreover, the biofilm should be analyzed by laser scanning microscopy or scanning electron microscopy to map the 3D architecture of the biofilm and thus identify if the specific organization of microbial communities could be created by different atmospheric conditions. Conclusion In conclusion, this study identified some minor differences among the atmospheric conditions; however, in general, microcosm biofilms produced under microaerophilia, anaerobiosis, or mixed models produced very similar artificial carious lesions in both enamel and dentin. Considering a general overview, mixed model may be interesting since it does not differ from the classical ones; however, researchers must be prepared to combine both methods in the Laboratory. Nevertheless, any of them could be applied since all were able to produce dental caries and to differentiate CHX and PBS. Funding This work was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP Proc. 2019/21797-0; 2019/01730-9; 2017/17249-2). This funding source was not involved in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. ==== Refs References 1 Marsh PD Moter A Devine DA Dental plaque biofilms: communities, conflict and control Periodontol 2000 2011 55 1 16 35 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00339.x 21134226 2 Takahashi N Oral Microbiome metabolism: from "Who are they?" to "What are they doing? J Dent Res 2015 94 12 1628 1637 10.1177/0022034515606045 26377570 3 Pitts NB Zero DT Marsh PD Ekstrand K Weintraub JA Ramos-Gomez F et al Dental caries Nat Rev Dis Primers 2017 3 17030 10.1038/nrdp.2017.30 4 Gross EL Leys EJ Gasparovich SR Firestone ND Schwartzbaum JA Janies DA et al Bacterial 16S sequence analysis of severe caries in young permanent teeth J Clin Microbiol 2010 48 11 4121 4128 10.1128/JCM.01232-10 20826648 5 Mosaddad SA Tahmasebi E Yazdanian A Rezvani MB Seifalian A Yazdanian M et al Oral microbial biofilms: an update Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2019 38 11 2005 2019 10.1007/s10096-019-03641-9 31372904 6 Amaechi BT Tenuta LM Ricomini AP Filho Cury JA Protocols to study dental caries in vitro: microbial caries models Methods Mol Biol 2019 1922 357 368 10.1007/978-1-4939-9012-2_32 30838590 7 Filoche SK Soma KJ Sissons CH Caries-related plaque microcosm biofilms developed in microplates Oral Microbiol Immunol 2007 22 2 73 79 10.1111/j.1399-302X.2007.00323.x 17311629 8 Amend S Frankenberger R Lücker S Domann E Krämer N Secondary caries formation with a two-species biofilm artificial mouth Dent Mater 2018 34 5 786 796 10.1016/j.dental.2018.02.002 29544984 9 McBain AJ Chapter 4: in vitro biofilm models: an overview Adv Appl Microbiol 2009 69 99 132 10.1016/S0065-2164(09)69004-3 19729092 10 Sim CP Dashper SG Reynolds EC Oral microbial biofilm models and their application to the testing of anticariogenic agents J Dent 2016 50 1 11 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.04.010 27131496 11 Braga AS Melo FP Saldanha LL Dokkedal AL Meissner T Bemmann M et al The effect of solutions containing extracts of Vochysia tucanorum Mart., Myrcia bella Cambess., Matricaria chamomilla L. and Malva sylvestris L. on cariogenic bacterial species and enamel caries development Caries Res 2021 55 3 193 204 10.1159/000515234 34000728 12 Zhang N Ma J Melo MA Weir MD Bai Y Xu HH Protein-repellent and antibacterial dental composite to inhibit biofilms and caries J Dent 2015 43 2 225 234 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.11.008 25478889 13 Souza BM Santos DM Magalhães AC Antimicrobial and anti-caries effect of new glass ionomer cement on enamel under microcosm biofilm model Braz Dent J 2018 9 6 599 605 10.1590/0103-6440201802163 14 Ayoub HM Gregory RL Tang Q Lippert F Comparison of human and bovine enamel in a microbial caries model at different biofilm maturations J Dent 2020 96 103328 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103328 15 Méndez AC Gutierres E Dionisio EJ Buzalaf MA Oliveira RC Machado MA et al Curcumin-mediated antimicrobial photodynamic therapy reduces the viability and vitality of infected dentin caries microcosms Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther 2018 24 102 108 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2018.09.007 30240927 16 Santos DM Pires JG Braga AS Salomão PM Magalhães AC Comparison between static and semi-dynamic models for microcosm biofilm formation on dentin J Appl Oral Sci 2019 27 e20180163 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0163 30624468 17 Signori C Hartwig AD Silva IF Júnior Correa MB Azevedo MS Cenci MS The role of human milk and sucrose on cariogenicity of microcosm biofilms Braz Oral Res 2018 32 e109 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0109 30328901 18 Braga AS Melo Simas LL Pires JG Souza BM Melo FP Saldanha LL et al Antibiofilm and anti-caries effects of an experimental mouth rinse containing Matricaria chamomilla L. extract under microcosm biofilm on enamel J Dent 2020 99 103415 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103415 32592827 19 Rudney JD Chen R Lenton P Li J Li Y Jones RS et al A reproducible oral microcosm biofilm model for testing dental materials J Appl Microbiol 2012 113 6 1540 1553 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05439.x 22925110 20 Maske TT Brauner KV Nakanishi L Arthur RA van de Sande FH Cenci MS An in vitro dynamic microcosm biofilm model for caries lesion development and antimicrobial dose-response studies Biofouling 2016 32 3 339 348 10.1080/08927014.2015.1130824 26905384 21 Kolenbrander PE Oral microbial communities: biofilms, interactions, and genetic systems Annu Rev Microbiol 2000 54 413 437 10.1146/annurev.micro.54.1.413 11018133 22 Dhaked HP Cao L Biswas I Redox sensing modulates the activity of the ComE response regulator of Streptococcus mutans J Bacteriol 2021 5 203 23 e0033021 10.1128/JB.00330-21 34516285 23 Maske TT van de Sande FH Arthur RA Huysmans MC Cenci MS In vitro biofilm models to study dental caries: a systematic review Biofouling 2017 33 8 661 675 10.1080/08927014.2017.1354248 28792234 24 Braga AS Girotti LD Simas LL Pires JG Pelá VT Buzalaf MA et al Effect of commercial herbal toothpastes and mouth rinses on the prevention of enamel demineralization using a microcosm biofilm model Biofouling 2019 35 7 796 804 10.1080/08927014.2019 31514534 25 Pratten J Wilson M Spratt DA Characterization of in vitro oral bacterial biofilms by traditional and molecular methods Oral Microbiol. Immunol 2003 18 1 45 49 10.1034/j.1399-302x.2003.180107.x 12588458 26 Lima JP Melo MA Borges FM Teixeira AH Steiner-Oliveira C Santos M et al Evaluation of the antimicrobial effect of photodynamic antimicrobial therapy in an in situ model of dentine caries Eur J Oral Sci 2009 117 5 568 574 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00662.x 19758254 27 Silva TC Pereira AF Exterkate RA Bagnato VS Buzalaf MA Machado MA et al Application of an active attachment model as a high-throughput demineralization biofilm model J Dent 2012 40 1 41 47 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.09.009 21996336 28 Li F Weir MD Fouad AF Xu HH Effect of salivary pellicle on antibacterial activity of novel antibacterial dental adhesives using a dental plaque microcosm biofilm model Dent Mater 2014 30 2 182 191 10.1016/j.dental.2013.11.004 24332270 29 Buchalla W Attin T Roth P Hellwig E Influence of olive oil emulsions on dentin demineralization in vitro Caries Res 2003 27 100 107 10.1159/000069017 30 Shapiro S Giertsen E Guggenheim B An in vitro oral biofilm model for comparing the efficacy of antimicrobial mouthrinses Caries Res 2002 36 2 93 100 10.1159/000057866 12037365 31 van Houte J Microbiological predictors of caries risk J Adv Dent Res 1993 7 2 87 96 10.1177/08959374930070022001 32 Tanner AC Kressirer CA Rothmiller S Johansson I Chalmers NI The caries microbiome: implications for reversing dysbiosis Adv Dent Res 2018 29 1 78 85 10.1177/0022034517736496 29355414 33 Gao X Jiang S Koh D Hsu CY Salivary biomarkers for dental caries Periodontol 2000 2016 70 1 128 141 10.1111/prd.12100 26662487 34 Caufield PW Schön CN Saraithong P Li Y Argimón S Oral lactobacilli and dental caries: a model for niche adaptation in humans J Dent Res 2015 4 9 110S 118S 10.1177/0022034515576052 35 van Strijp AJ van Steenbergena TJ ten Cate JM Effects of chlorhexidine on the bacterial colonization and degradation of dentin and completely demineralized dentin in situ Eur Oral Sci 1997 105 27 35 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1997.tb00177.x 36 Schoilew K Ueffing H Dalpke A Wolff B Frese C Wolff D et al Bacterial biofilm composition in healthy subjects with and without caries experience J Oral Microbiol 2019 11 1 1633194 10.1080/20002297.2019.1633194