| Literature DB >> 19089260 |
Evandro Watanabe1, Juliane Maria Guerreiro Tanomaru, Andresa Piacezzi Nascimento, Fumio Matoba-Júnior, Mario Tanomaru-Filho, Izabel Yoko Ito.
Abstract
The aim of this in vitro study was to determine the maximum inhibitory dilution (MID) of four cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC)-based mouthwashes: CPC+Propolis, CPC+Malva, CPC+Eucaliptol+Juá+Romã+Propolis (Natural Honey) and CPC (Cepacol), against 28 Staphylococcus aureus field strains, using the agar dilution method. Decimal dilutions ranging from 1/10 to 1/655,360 were prepared and added to Mueller Hinton Agar. Strains were inoculated using Steers multipoint inoculator. The inocula were seeded onto the surface of the culture medium in Petri dishes containing different dilutions of the mouthwashes. The dishes were incubated at 37 degrees C for 24 h. For readings, the MID was considered as the maximum dilution of mouthwash still capable of inhibiting microbial growth. The obtained data showed that CPC+Propolis had antimicrobial activity against 27 strains at 1/320 dilution and against all 28 strains at 1/160 dilution, CPC+Malva inhibited the growth of all 28 strains at 1/320 dilution, CPC+Eucaliptol+Juá+Romã+Propolis inhibited the growth of 2 strains at 1/640 dilution and all 28 strains at 1/320 dilution, and Cepacol showed antimicrobial activity against 3 strains at 1/320 dilution and against all 28 strains at 1/160 dilution. Data were submitted to Kruskal-Wallis test, showing that the MID of Cepacol was lower than that determined for the other products (p<0.05). In conclusion, CPC-mouthwashes showed antimicrobial activity against S. aureus and the addition of other substances to CPC improved its antimicrobial effect.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 19089260 PMCID: PMC4327537 DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572008000400009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Appl Oral Sci ISSN: 1678-7757 Impact factor: 2.698
Chemical composition of the antiseptic solutions evaluated
| Antiseptic | Composition | |
|---|---|---|
| Cepacol® |
– Cetylpyridinium chloride – Disodium EDTA – Sodium saccharin – Polysorbate 80 – Glycerin – Water – Sodium phosphate monobasic anhydrous |
– Eucalyptol – Menthol – Methyl salicilate – Mint oil – Chinese cinnamon flavor – Yellow tartrazine – Ethyl alcohol 96GL |
| Natural Honey CPC+Propolis |
– Natural propolis extract – Sodium fluoride 0.05% (226ppmF) – Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) – Sorbitol – Sodium phosphate monobasic – Sodium phosphate dibasic |
– Ethanol – Sorbitan monolaurate – Sodium saccharin – CI42.053 green – Mint flavor – Demineralized water |
| Natural Honey CPC+Malva |
– Natural – Sodium fluoride 0.05% (226ppmF) – Cetylpyridinium chloride(CPC) – Sorbitol – Sodium phosphate monobasic – Sodium phosphate dibasic |
– Ethanol – Sorbitan monolaurate – Sodium saccharin – CI42.090 blue – Mint flavor – Demineralized water |
| Natural Honey CPC + Eucaliptol + Juá + Romã + Propolis |
– Natural extracts of pomegranate, propolis, and – Eucalyptol – Methyl salicilate – Sodium fluoride 0.05% (226ppmF) – Cetylpyridinium chloride(CPC) – Sorbitol |
– Sodium phosphate dibasic – Ethanol – Sorbitan monolaurate – Sodium saccharin – CI 19.140 and 15.985 color – Pomegranate flavor – Demineralized water |
Percentage of S. aureus strains inhibited (from a total of 28 strains) by each dilution of the tested mouthwashes
| CPC+Propolis | CPC+Malva | CPC+Eucaliptol+Juá+ | CPC | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| i. s. | i. s. | c. d. | c. d. | i. s. | i. s. | c. d. | c. d. | i. s. | i. s. | c. d. | c. d. | i. s. | i. s. | c. d. | c. d. | |
| Dilution | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| 1/640 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 7.1 | 2 | 7.1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |
| 1/320 | 27 | 96.4 | 27 | 96.4 | 28 | 100.0 | 28 | 100.0 | 26 | 92.9 | 28 | 100.0 | 3 | 10.7 | 3 | 10.7 |
| 1/160 | 1 | 3.6 | 28 | 100.0 | 25 | 89.3 | 28 | 100.0 | ||||||||
(p<0.05)
i.s. Inhibited strains
c.d. Cumulative data