Comparative in vitro evaluation of efficacy of mouthrinses against Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacilli and Candida albicans

Neeraj Malhotra, Sugandhi P. Rao, Shashirashmi Acharya, Ballal Vasudev

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The present study was undertaken to compare the relative antimicrobial efficacy of two commercially available mouthrinses, Hexidine (0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse) and S-Flo (0.2% sodium fluoride), and a laboratory-manufactured propolis mouthrinse (10%) tincture with a dilution of 1:5 with water and their combinations against Streptococcus mutans, lactobacilli and Candida albicans. Materials and Methods: Unstimulated saliva samples were obtained from the patients using the spitting method and the isolates of Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus and Candida albicans were obtained. The agar diffusion method was used to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of these test solutions and their combinations. Results: Hexidine (0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse) showed the best antimicrobial efficacy against all the tested microorganisms. The laboratory manufactured propolis mouthrinse showed an effective antimicrobial action only against Streptococcus mutans. The antimicrobial efficacy of propolis (P) against Streptococcus mutans was similar to that of chlorhexidine (CHX) and the combination of propolis with chlorhexidine (CHX+P). S-Flo mouthrinse (0.2% sodium fluoride) showed the least efficacy against Streptococcus mutans among all tested solutions, but had better efficacy than propolis against lactobacilli and Candida albicans. The antimicrobial efficacy of the combination of chlorhexidine and fluoride mouthrinse and the combination of chlorhexidine and propolis mouthrinse was less than chlorhexidine mouthwash alone. Among all the tested combinations, the combination of fluoride and propolis showed the least efficacy against all the tested microorganisms. Conclusion: The results of the study indicate that 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse (Hexidine) has the best anti-microbial efficacy against all the tested microorganisms, with laboratory-manufactured propolis mouthrinse showing an equivalent efficacy against Streptococcus mutans only. No added advantage of using the tested mouthrinse combinations was observed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)261-268
Number of pages8
JournalOral Health and Preventive Dentistry
Volume9
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 01-01-2011

Fingerprint

Propolis
Streptococcus mutans
Lactobacillus
Chlorhexidine
Candida albicans
Sodium Fluoride
Fluorides
Mouthwashes
In Vitro Techniques
Saliva
Agar
chlorhexidine gluconate
Water

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dental Hygiene

Cite this

@article{1eefb47865584a42a0717824f31aa3dd,
title = "Comparative in vitro evaluation of efficacy of mouthrinses against Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacilli and Candida albicans",
abstract = "Purpose: The present study was undertaken to compare the relative antimicrobial efficacy of two commercially available mouthrinses, Hexidine (0.12{\%} chlorhexidine mouthrinse) and S-Flo (0.2{\%} sodium fluoride), and a laboratory-manufactured propolis mouthrinse (10{\%}) tincture with a dilution of 1:5 with water and their combinations against Streptococcus mutans, lactobacilli and Candida albicans. Materials and Methods: Unstimulated saliva samples were obtained from the patients using the spitting method and the isolates of Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus and Candida albicans were obtained. The agar diffusion method was used to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of these test solutions and their combinations. Results: Hexidine (0.12{\%} chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse) showed the best antimicrobial efficacy against all the tested microorganisms. The laboratory manufactured propolis mouthrinse showed an effective antimicrobial action only against Streptococcus mutans. The antimicrobial efficacy of propolis (P) against Streptococcus mutans was similar to that of chlorhexidine (CHX) and the combination of propolis with chlorhexidine (CHX+P). S-Flo mouthrinse (0.2{\%} sodium fluoride) showed the least efficacy against Streptococcus mutans among all tested solutions, but had better efficacy than propolis against lactobacilli and Candida albicans. The antimicrobial efficacy of the combination of chlorhexidine and fluoride mouthrinse and the combination of chlorhexidine and propolis mouthrinse was less than chlorhexidine mouthwash alone. Among all the tested combinations, the combination of fluoride and propolis showed the least efficacy against all the tested microorganisms. Conclusion: The results of the study indicate that 0.12{\%} chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse (Hexidine) has the best anti-microbial efficacy against all the tested microorganisms, with laboratory-manufactured propolis mouthrinse showing an equivalent efficacy against Streptococcus mutans only. No added advantage of using the tested mouthrinse combinations was observed.",
author = "Neeraj Malhotra and Rao, {Sugandhi P.} and Shashirashmi Acharya and Ballal Vasudev",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "261--268",
journal = "Oral health & preventive dentistry",
issn = "1602-1622",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "3",

}

Comparative in vitro evaluation of efficacy of mouthrinses against Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacilli and Candida albicans. / Malhotra, Neeraj; Rao, Sugandhi P.; Acharya, Shashirashmi; Vasudev, Ballal.

In: Oral Health and Preventive Dentistry, Vol. 9, No. 3, 01.01.2011, p. 261-268.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative in vitro evaluation of efficacy of mouthrinses against Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacilli and Candida albicans

AU - Malhotra, Neeraj

AU - Rao, Sugandhi P.

AU - Acharya, Shashirashmi

AU - Vasudev, Ballal

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - Purpose: The present study was undertaken to compare the relative antimicrobial efficacy of two commercially available mouthrinses, Hexidine (0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse) and S-Flo (0.2% sodium fluoride), and a laboratory-manufactured propolis mouthrinse (10%) tincture with a dilution of 1:5 with water and their combinations against Streptococcus mutans, lactobacilli and Candida albicans. Materials and Methods: Unstimulated saliva samples were obtained from the patients using the spitting method and the isolates of Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus and Candida albicans were obtained. The agar diffusion method was used to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of these test solutions and their combinations. Results: Hexidine (0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse) showed the best antimicrobial efficacy against all the tested microorganisms. The laboratory manufactured propolis mouthrinse showed an effective antimicrobial action only against Streptococcus mutans. The antimicrobial efficacy of propolis (P) against Streptococcus mutans was similar to that of chlorhexidine (CHX) and the combination of propolis with chlorhexidine (CHX+P). S-Flo mouthrinse (0.2% sodium fluoride) showed the least efficacy against Streptococcus mutans among all tested solutions, but had better efficacy than propolis against lactobacilli and Candida albicans. The antimicrobial efficacy of the combination of chlorhexidine and fluoride mouthrinse and the combination of chlorhexidine and propolis mouthrinse was less than chlorhexidine mouthwash alone. Among all the tested combinations, the combination of fluoride and propolis showed the least efficacy against all the tested microorganisms. Conclusion: The results of the study indicate that 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse (Hexidine) has the best anti-microbial efficacy against all the tested microorganisms, with laboratory-manufactured propolis mouthrinse showing an equivalent efficacy against Streptococcus mutans only. No added advantage of using the tested mouthrinse combinations was observed.

AB - Purpose: The present study was undertaken to compare the relative antimicrobial efficacy of two commercially available mouthrinses, Hexidine (0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse) and S-Flo (0.2% sodium fluoride), and a laboratory-manufactured propolis mouthrinse (10%) tincture with a dilution of 1:5 with water and their combinations against Streptococcus mutans, lactobacilli and Candida albicans. Materials and Methods: Unstimulated saliva samples were obtained from the patients using the spitting method and the isolates of Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus and Candida albicans were obtained. The agar diffusion method was used to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of these test solutions and their combinations. Results: Hexidine (0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse) showed the best antimicrobial efficacy against all the tested microorganisms. The laboratory manufactured propolis mouthrinse showed an effective antimicrobial action only against Streptococcus mutans. The antimicrobial efficacy of propolis (P) against Streptococcus mutans was similar to that of chlorhexidine (CHX) and the combination of propolis with chlorhexidine (CHX+P). S-Flo mouthrinse (0.2% sodium fluoride) showed the least efficacy against Streptococcus mutans among all tested solutions, but had better efficacy than propolis against lactobacilli and Candida albicans. The antimicrobial efficacy of the combination of chlorhexidine and fluoride mouthrinse and the combination of chlorhexidine and propolis mouthrinse was less than chlorhexidine mouthwash alone. Among all the tested combinations, the combination of fluoride and propolis showed the least efficacy against all the tested microorganisms. Conclusion: The results of the study indicate that 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse (Hexidine) has the best anti-microbial efficacy against all the tested microorganisms, with laboratory-manufactured propolis mouthrinse showing an equivalent efficacy against Streptococcus mutans only. No added advantage of using the tested mouthrinse combinations was observed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855183894&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855183894&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 261

EP - 268

JO - Oral health & preventive dentistry

JF - Oral health & preventive dentistry

SN - 1602-1622

IS - 3

ER -