## 3 Results  
In the first line of investigation, the basic parameters of ocenidine-containing (OCT) lozenges were assessed. The average mass of the OCT lozenge was 2604 \(\pm\) 2.3 mg; in static conditions, it dissolved in 40 mL of artificial saliva (AS), while in the oral cavity, lozenges dissolved completely in 22.8 \(\pm\) 4 min. The assessment of these parameters was necessary to establish the appropriate exposure times and to indicate the appropriate concentrations of ocenidine dihydrochloride to be applied in the subsequent in vitro models. For all strains applied in the research, it was also possible to indicate the Minimum Antimicrobial Concentration (M.A.C.) and Minimum Biofilm Eradication Concentration (M.B.E.C.) values for ocenidine dihydrochloride (in the standard 96-well plate model); regardless, it was applied in the formulation of liquid (OL) antiseptic or it was released from the lozenge (OCT) formulation (Table 1). As shown in Table 1, all MBEC values, regardless of the species the ocenidine dihydrochloride was applied against, were higher than the Minimum Antimicrobial Concentration values. The highest difference (16 times) between these two values was recorded in _S. aureus_ and _S. pyogenes_. In turn, the lowest difference between MBEC and Minimum Antimicrobial Concentration was two times, and it concerned the setting where ocenidine was introduced to _A. actinomycetemcomitans_. The least favorable MBEC and Minimum \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & _S. aureus_ & _S. pyogenes_ & _P. aeruginosa_ & _C. albicans_ & _A. actinomycetemcomitans_ \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Minimum Antimicrobial Concentration/Minimum Biofilm Eradication Concentration [mg/L]} \\ \hline OCT & 0.244/3.906 & 0.244/3.906 & 0.976/7.812 & 1.803/31.25 & 0.12/0.24 \\ \hline OL & 0.244/3.906 & 0.244/3.906 & 0.488/15.625 & 3.906/31.25 & 0.12/0.24 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of Minimum Antimicrobial Concentrations and Minimum Biofilm Eradication Concentrations (MBEC, bolded font) displayed by OCT or OL towards tested microorganisms. OCT—ocenidine hydrochloride containing lozenge; OL—ocenidine dihydrochloride liquid antiseptic. Antimicrobial Concentration values of octenidine were recorded for _C. albicans_, while the most favorable (the lowest one) were recorded for _A. actinomycetemcomitants_. In the case of the MBEC and MBC values of octenidine released from OCT or OL antiseptic, no significant differences were observed. The maximal change between analyzed values was twofold and no distinct trend could be distinguished--the MBEC values of octenidine released from OCT and OL in _P. aeruginosa_ were 7.812 and 15.625, respectively, while in case of _C. albicans_, the Minimum Antimicrobial Concentration values for octenidine released from OCT or OL were 1.803 and 3.906, respectively. In turn, the same MBEC and Minimum Antimicrobial Concentration values were recorded for _S. aureus_ and _S. pyogenes_, regardless of the antiseptic formulation applied (OCT or OL). The same situation (no difference regarding the type of antiseptic formulation applied) was observed in the case _of A. actinomycetemcomitans_. In the second line of investigation, the capability of microorganisms to form a biofilm on the hydroxyapatite or agar discs (surfaces applied in the subsequent analyses of MBEC values in the next research setting) was scrutinized using Scanning Electron Microscopy (Figure 2). Figure 2: The biofilms of _Staphylococcus aureus_ 33,591 (S.a), _Streptococcus pyogenes_ 19,615, _Pseudomonas aeruginosa_ 15,442 (P.a), _Candida albicans_ 1023 (C.a), _Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitants_ 29,522 (A.a) formed on hydroxyapatite or agar disks. Zeiss EVO MA 25; Auriga 60 (Obenkochen, Germany). All tested species formed the adhered, robust (multilayer) structures of a biofilm, regardless of the surface they were cultured on. Nevertheless, the specific differences relating to the type of surface applied could be distinguished. Firstly, the _S. aureus_ and _P.