| Literature DB >> 20418062 |
R W K Wong1, U Hägg, L Samaranayake, M K Z Yuen, C J Seneviratne, R Kao.
Abstract
Twenty traditional Chinese medicines (TCM) were evaluated for their antimicrobial activity against four common oral bacteria. TCMs were tested for sensitivity against Streptococcus mitis, Streptococcus sanguis, Streptococcus mutans and Porphyromonas gingivalis. Aliquots of suspension of each bacterial species were inoculated onto a horse blood agar plate with TCMs soaked separately on 6mm paper disks. The plates were incubated for 48h anaerobically and the mean diameters of growth inhibition of three different areas obtained. 0.2% (w/v) chlorhexidine was used as a positive control. Broth microdilution assay was used to determine minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal concentration. Fructus armeniaca mume was effective against all four bacteria. Thirteen TCMs demonstrated antimicrobial activity against Porphyromonas gingivalis, including Cortex magnoliae officinalis, Cortex phellodendri, Flos caryophylli, Flos lonicerae japonicae, Fructus armeniaca mume, Fructus forsythiae suspensae, Herba cum radice violae yedoensitis, Herba menthae haplocalycis, Pericarpium granati, Radix et rhizoma rhei, Radix gentianae, Ramulus cinnamomi cassia and Rhizoma cimicifugae. Cortex phellodendri showed antimicrobial activity against Streptococcus mutans, while Radix et rhizoma rhei was effective against Streptococcus mitis and Streptococcus sanguis. Fructus armeniaca mume had inhibitory effects against Streptococcus mitis, Streptococcus sanguis, Streptococcus mutans and Porphyromonas gingivalis in vitro.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20418062 PMCID: PMC7126725 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.02.024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg ISSN: 0901-5027 Impact factor: 2.789
Sensitivity of bacteria to the TCM tested.
| – | – | – | 4.3 (±0.2) | |
| 8.0 (±0.1) | - | P | 38.3 (±0.3) | |
| – | - | - | 9.8 (±0) | |
| – | - | P | P | |
| – | – | P | 5.5 (±0.4) | |
| 9.0 (±0) | 13.1(±0.1) | 11.7 (±0) | 10.6 (±0.1) | |
| – | – | – | 7.4 (±0.1) | |
| – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | P | – | |
| – | – | - | 9.0 (±0) | |
| – | – | P | P | |
| – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | 2.3 (±0.3) | |
| – | – | – | 12.9 (±0) | |
| – | 4.4 (±0) | 3.6(±0) | 31.7 (±0.1) | |
| – | – | – | 11.4 (±0.1) | |
| – | – | – | - | |
| – | – | – | 8.5 (±0) | |
| – | – | – | 13.0 (±0.2) | |
| – | – | – | – | |
| Control | 12.1 (±0) | 7.4 (±0.1) | 9.1 (±0) | 23.7 (±0.1) |
(P) Stands for partial inhibitory effect.
(–) Indicates for no inhibitory effect.
Values in parenthesis indicate standard deviation
Indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Fig. 1Sensitivity of S. mitis to two out of 20 TCM tested.
Fig. 5Results for all bacteria. S. mutans: (1) Chlorhexidine, (2) Cortex phellodendri, (3) Fructus armeniaca mume. S. mitis: (1) Chlorhexidine, (2) Radix et rhizoma rhei, (3) Fructus armeniaca mume. S. sanguis: (1) Chlorhexidine, (2) Fructus armeniaca mume, (3) Radix et rhizoma rhei. P. gingivalis: (1) Chlorhexidine, (2) Cortex magnoliae officinalis, (3) Fructus armeniaca mume, (4) Radix gentianae longdancao, (5) Ramulus cinnamomi cassiae, (6) Herba cum radice violae yedoensitis, (7) Radix et rhizoma rhei, (8) Rhizoma cimicifugae, (9) Cortex phellodendri, (10) Flos lonicerae japonicae, (11) Cortex magnoliae officinalis, (12) Fructus forsythiae suspensae, (13) Pericarpium granati, (14) Herba menthae haplocalycis.
Fig. 2Sensitivity of S. sanguis to two out of 20 TCM tested.
Fig. 3Sensitivity of S. mutans to two out of 20 TCM tested.
Fig. 4Sensitivity of P. gingivalis to 13 out of 20 TCM tested.
MIC and MBC of Fructus armeniaca mume (wu mei) against oral microorganisms.
| Species | MIC (g/ml) | MBC (g/ml) |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0781 | 0.1563 | |
| 0.0781 | 0.1563 | |
| 0.0781 | 0.0781 | |
| 0.0003 | 0.0003 |