Background: It has been demonstrated that azole-resistant strains of Candida albicans have a greater resistance to antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) when compared to their more susceptible counterparts. For this reason, the present study evaluated the efficacy of aPDT, together with nystatin (NYS), in the treatment of oral candidiasis in vivo. Methods: Mice were infected with fluconazole-resistant C. albicans (ATCC 96901). To perform the combined therapy, aPDT, mediated by Photodithazine (PDZ) and LED light, was used together with NYS. The efficacy of the treatments was evaluated by microbiological, macroscopic, histopathological and Confocal Scanning Laser Microscopy analyses of the lesions. The expression of p21 and p53, proteins associated with cell death, from the tongues of mice, was also performed. Results: The combined therapy reduced the fungal viability by around 2.6 log₁₀ and decreased the oral lesions and the inflammatory reaction. Additionally, it stimulated the production of p53 and p21. Conclusions: The combined therapy is a promising alternative treatment for oral candidiasis induced by C. albicans resistant to fluconazole.

This study aimed to evaluate the potential of successive applications of sub-lethal doses of the antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) mediated by Photodithazine^® (PDZ) and curcumin (CUR) associated with LED in the viability, reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, and gene expression of Candida albicans. The microbial assays were performed using planktonic cultures and biofilms. Ten successive applications (Apl#) were performed: aPDT (P+L+; C+L+), photosensitizer (P+L−; C+L−), and LED (P−L+; C−L+). Control groups were used (P−L−; C−L−). The viability of C. albicans was determined by cultivating treated cultures on agar plates with or without fluconazole (FLU). In addition, the ROS detection and expression of SOD1, CAP1, and ERG11 genes were determined. For planktonic cultures, no viable colonies were observed after Apl#3 (without FLU) and Apl#2 (with FLU) for either photosensitizer. Biofilm treated with P+L+ resulted in the absence of cell viability after Apl#7, while C+L+ showed ~1.40 log₁₀ increase in cell viability after Apl#2, regardless of FLU. For both photosensitizers, after the last application with viable colonies, the production of ROS was higher in the biofilms than in the planktonic cultures, and SOD1 expression was the highest in P+L+. A reduction of CAP1 and ERG11 expression occurred after P+L+, regardless of FLU. C+L+ had a higher level of ROS, and the treatments were non-significant for gene expression. Sub-lethal doses of aPDT mediated by CUR could induce C. albicans resistance in biofilms, while C. albicans cells in biofilms were susceptible to aPDT mediated by PDZ.

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) is a method that does not seem to promote antimicrobial resistance. Photosensitizers (PS) conjugated with inorganic nanoparticles for the drug-delivery system have the purpose of enhancing the efficacy of aPDT. The present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of aPDT mediated by PS conjugated with inorganic nanoparticles. The PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, SciELO, and Lilacs databases were searched. OHAT Rob toll was used to assess the risk of bias. A random effect model with an odds ratio (OR) and effect measure was used. Fourteen articles were able to be included in the present review. The most frequent microorganisms evaluated were Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, and metallic and silica nanoparticles were the most common drug-delivery systems associated with PS. Articles showed biases related to blinding. Significant results were found in aPDT mediated by PS conjugated with inorganic nanoparticles for overall reduction of microorganism cultured in suspension (OR = 0.19 [0.07; 0.67]/p-value = 0.0019), E. coli (OR = 0.08 [0.01; 0.52]/p-value = 0.0081), and for Gram-negative bacteria (OR = 0.12 [0.02; 0.56/p-value = 0.0071). This association approach significantly improved the efficacy in the reduction of microbial cells. However, additional blinding studies evaluating the efficacy of this therapy over microorganisms cultured in biofilm are required.

This study assessed the effect of zerumbone (ZER) against fluconazole-resistant (CaR) and -susceptible Candida albicans (CaS) biofilms and verified the influence of ZER on extracellular matrix components. Initially, to determine the treatment conditions, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), the minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) and the survival curve were evaluated. Biofilms were formed for 48 h and exposed to ZER at concentrations of 128 and 256 µg/mL for 5, 10 and 20 min (n = 12). One group of biofilms did not receive the treatment in order to monitor the effects. The biofilms were evaluated to determine the microbial population (CFU/mL), and the extracellular matrix components (water-soluble polysaccharides (WSP), alkali-soluble polysaccharides (ASPs), proteins and extracellular DNA (eDNA), as well as the biomass (total and insoluble) were quantified. The MIC value of ZER for CaS was 256 μg/mL, and for CaR, it was 64 μg/mL. The survival curve and the MFC value coincided for CaS (256 μg/mL) and CaR (128 μg/mL). ZER reduced the cellular viability by 38.51% for CaS and by 36.99% for CaR. ZER at 256 µg/mL also reduced the total biomass (57%), insoluble biomass (45%), WSP (65%), proteins (18%) and eDNA (78%) of CaS biofilms. In addition, a reduction in insoluble biomass (13%), proteins (18%), WSP (65%), ASP (10%) and eDNA (23%) was also observed in the CaR biofilms. ZER was effective against fluconazole-resistant and -susceptible C. albicans biofilms and disturbed the extracellular matrix.

Introduction the use of light emitting diodes (LED) in domestic and public vias have increased in the last 20 years. In addition, the LED light has been used as a light source for medical applications. Objective since humans are increasingly exposed to LEDs, there is an urgency to investigate the possible biological effects on tissues caused by this exposure. So, researchers have been focused their investigations in the application of this light in the health field. Material and method in this review, a search in important databases was performed on the biological effects caused after application of different LED light protocols in in vitro and in vivo studies. Result although most published papers have shown positive results, some of them reported negative biological effects of light LEDs technology on humans’ cells/tissues. Conclusion therefore, the comprehension of the biological effects caused by light LEDs will provide a better assessment of the risks involved using this technology.