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.
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.
Authors: Arkadiusz Dziedzic; Robert Kubina; Robert D Wojtyczka; Agata Kabała-Dzik; Marta Tanasiewicz; Tadeusz Morawiec Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Tadeusz Morawiec; Anna Mertas; Robert D Wojtyczka; Iwona Niedzielska; Arkadiusz Dziedzic; Anna Bubiłek-Bogacz; Jakub Sender; Jacek Wróbel; Marta Tanasiewicz; Piotr Wesołowski; Wojciech Król Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 3.411