Talk:Streptococcus mutans

Dentistry Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oragenics[edit]

Should a discussion of this company's work be included?

http://www.oragenics.com/product_replacement.php

Quadm 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, probably not. If the product is shown to be effective and has more recent (and accessible) scientific data to demonstrate the company's claims, then I'd personally say yes. -- MarcoTolo 03:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the company's recent finances, Oragenics may not be around for very long. Interestingly, they have been developing a second front to preventing tooth decay along with gum disease. As for the 'Replacement Therapy' Quadm referred to above, the rights of the technology are held by the University of Florida, which can then license them to someone else. Something else to watch for is Planet Biotechnology, which is developing a drug called CaroRx that will help prevent tooth decay by preventing S. mutans from attaching to the tooth. It is currently in Phase II clinical testing. I don't know what their financial status is and if they will be able to bring it to the market. -- LtGen 01:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccines[edit]

Who wrote this?

"So far, such vaccines have not been successful in humans.[6]"

The [6] reference is from 1988 (!) not 1998 as it is written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.202.23 (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific research and clinical dentistry[edit]

I would like to see more emphasis on the scientific mechanisms of routine prevention of tooth decay as commonly used in or recommended by dental offices:

1. I recall from dental school that fluoride permanently inhibits the enolase enzyme, thus reducing the activity of S Mutans. This is a clinically significant fact. Does anyone have a good reference for it?

2. Chlorhexidine reduces the ability of S Mutans to adhere to tooth surfaces, especially root surfaces. Bacterial adherence is an important topic. Here is a link to a 1983 article about Chlorhexidine and S. Mutans: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC348045/pdf/iai00143-0504.pdf

3. Over the counter sugar-free gum sometimes contains the 5 carbon sugar xylitol which confuses the metabolism of the bacteria because they only handle 2 carbons at a time. The fifth carbon ends up pre-occupying the bacteria's metabolism. It's good to see a reference for Xylitol.

I'm not a researcher, just a clinical dentist looking for more scientific citations about what has already proven to work in our fight against this troublesome bacteria.

LFlagg (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

Please excuse my inept attempt to edit the introduction to this article. My edits often end up presenting as one long paragraph. What am I doing wrong here?LFlagg (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks to who ever fixed it. I'll try to limit my editing to the "talk page". 70.78.194.188 (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

should have more on xylitol[edit]

supposedly it "starves" the bacteria and they recommend 5 "exposures" to xylitol per day along with brushing and flossing and you may be able to significantly reduce populations of S. Mutans.

other products that might be discussed include neem, which supposedly can reduce size of pockets in gum disease and also a chlorine dioxide rinse. i guess this not really about preventing tooth decay though. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.39.80.16 (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cariogenic potential[edit]

There is no data in the whole section about carcinogenic potential (of what?). The section only explains why S. mutans is prevalent as a pathogen contributing to dental decay, in spite of the ability of human immune system to inactivate S. mutans in vitro. The title of this section needs to be changed, or the whole section needs to be rewritten. --Mirrordor 19:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor (talk • contribs)

I think the first two paragraphs are well written and appropriate. The third paragraph deals with the more complex subject of the immune response. My dental school years were over 25 years ago so I can't offer too much about this subject.

There are two Wikipedia articles that might be interesting in a general sort of way. The Saliva article is good. And there is an article on Immunoglobin A (IgA) which is the immunoglobin found in saliva. I didn't see anything about how effective IgA might be against Strep mutans.

Perhaps this section should be titled cariogenic virulence (high pathogenicity) rather than cariogenic potential. I still regard Strep mutans as a nasty aggressive virulent bacteria causing significant human suffering. (But only because we feed it sugar so frequently, of course.)LFlagg (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another mutans reducer[edit]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/269685.php

"In a pilot trial involving 60 subjects, Lang and her team tested whether their sugar-free candy, which contained heat-killed samples of L. paracasei DSMZ16671, reduced levels of bad oral bacteria.

"We think it remarkable that this effect was observed after exposure to only five pieces of candy containing 1 or 2 mg of dead Lactobacillus paracasei DSMZ16671 consumed in 1.5 days." " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14B8:100:2A9:0:0:0:2 (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to genetic engineering progress?[edit]

Should we include a reference to the progress made in genetic engineering of this bacteria to inhibit its lactose production? This will likely be the way society eliminates this bacteria from the mouth biome. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of viridans streptococci or not?[edit]

In the introduction to this article, when talking about the concept of "mutans streptococci" it's stated that "This grouping of similar bacteria with similar tropism can also be seen in the viridans streptococci, another group of Streptococcus species", strongly implying that S. mutans is NOT a viridans streptococcus. This is in direct conflict with the article on viridans streptococci, where it's stated that "[Viridans streptococci] are most abundant in the mouth, and one member of the group, S. mutans, is the cause of dental caries in most cases and populations." So which is it? Justgivememyoldlayoutback (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]