| Literature DB >> 24856826 |
Su-Jeong Yang1, Sang-Ha Han1, Ah-Ra Lee1, Joon-Ho Jun2, Mi-Won Son2, Se-Hwan Oh3, Jaehong Kim4, Soon-Young Paik1.
Abstract
Streptococcus mutans is frequently associated with dental caries. Bacterial fermentation of food debris generates an acidic environment on the tooth surface, ultimately resulting in tooth deterioration. Therefore, various mouthwashes have been used to reduce and prevent Streptococcus mutans. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial activities of 4 commercial mouthwashes and those of 10% and 20% ethanol solutions (formula A, B, C, D, E and F) against Streptococcus mutans using biofilm and planktonic methods. The range of reduction in the viable cell count of Streptococcus mutans as estimated by the biofilm and planktonic methods was 0.05-5.51 log (P ≤ 0.01) and 1.23-7.51 log (P ≤ 0.001) compared with the negative control, respectively, indicating that the planktonic method had a stronger antibacterial effect against S. mutans. Among the tested formulations, formula A (Garglin regular® mouthwash) was the most effective against Streptococcus mutans (P ≤ 0.001).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 24856826 PMCID: PMC4345641 DOI: 10.5483/bmbrep.2015.48.1.090
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMB Rep ISSN: 1976-6696 Impact factor: 4.778
Effect of antimicrobial mouthwashes on biofilm and planktonic cells of S. mutansss
| PBS | Product A+ | Product B+ | Product C+ | Product D+ | Product E+ | Product F | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Biofilm | CFU (SD)* | 5.54±0.05 | 0.00±0.00 | 5.46±0.03 | 5.00±0.05 | 5.42±0.10 | 5.49±0.02 | 5.48±0.02 |
| % Kill | 100 | 16.82 | 71.61 | 24.14 | 10.87 | 12.90 | ||
| Log reduction | 5.54† | 0.08† | 0.54† | 0.12† | 0.05‡ | 0.06† | ||
| Planktonic | CFU (SD)* | 7.56±0.20 | 0.00±0.00 | 1.24±0.14 | 1.06±0.14 | 6.27±0.12 | 6.54±0.21 | 6.33±0.26 |
| % Kill | 100 | 99.99 | 99.99 | 94.87 | 90.45 | 94.11 | ||
| Log reduction | 7.56† | 6.33† | 6.50† | 1.29† | 1.02† | 1.23† | ||
*Mean (SD) Log-transformed counts to test solution. †Test formulas compared to PBS (P ≤ 0.001). ‡10% ethanol compared to PBS (P ≤ 0.01).
Fig. 1.The log CFU/ml of S. mutans using the biofilm method. (A) negative control and formula A (P ≤ 0.001), (B) negative control and formula B (P ≤ 0.001), (C) negative control and formula C (P ≤ 0.001), (D) negative control and formula D (P ≤ 0.001), (E) negative control and formula E (P ≤ 0.01), (F) negative control and formula F (P ≤ 0.001).
Fig. 2.The log CFU/ml of S. mutans using the planktonic method. (A) negative control and formula A (P ≤ 0.001), (B) negative control and formula B (P ≤ 0.001), (C) negative control and formula C (P ≤ 0.001), (D) negative control and formula D (P ≤ 0.001), (E) negative control and formula E (P ≤ 0.001), (F) negative control and formula F (P ≤ 0.001).
Components of the tested solutions
| Formula | Components | Concentration (%) |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| A | Cetylpyridinium chloride | 0.05 |
| Sodium fluoride | 0.02 | |
| B | Sodium fluoride | 0.02 |
| C | Methyl salicylate | 0.06 |
| Thymol | 0.06 | |
| Eucalyptol | 0.09 | |
| Levomenthol | 0.04 | |
| Ethanol | 27 | |
| D | Isopropylene methyl phenol | 0.02 |
| Sodium fluoride | 0.02 | |
| E | Ethanol | 10 |
| F | Ethanol | 20 |