Charuta Sadanand Dabholkar1, Mona Shah2, Rahul Kathariya3, Monika Bajaj4, Yogesh Doshi5. 1. Post Graduate Student, Department of Periodontics, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Dental College , Sholapur, India . 2. Professor & Head, Department of Periodontics, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Dental College , Sholapur, India . 3. Lecturer, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Dr. D.Y Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D.Y Patil Vidyapeeth , Pune, India . 4. Lecturer, Department of Periodontics, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Dental College , Sholapur, India . 5. Reader, Department of Periodontics, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Dental College , Sholapur, India .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pomegranate is considered "A pharmacy unto itself". Hydrolysable tannins called punicalagins which have free scavenging properties are the most abundant polyphenols found in pomegranate-containing mouthwash. AIM: To evaluate antimicrobial effect of pomegranate- containing mouthwash on oral biofilm-forming bacteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mouthwashes used were divided into three groups- Group A: Chlorhexidine mouthwash (Hexidine); Group B: Herbal Mouthwash (Hiora) and Group C: Pomegranate-containing Mouthwash (Life-extension). Each mouthwash was diluted to five different concentrations. Reference strains of Streptococcus mutans (S.mutans) (ATCC 25175), Streptococcus salivarius (S.salivarius) (ATCC 7073), and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (A.a) (NCTC 9710) were selected as being colonizers in dental biofilm formation. On each culture plate, five wells of 5mm were prepared and mouthwashes with different concentrations were added, followed by incubation in a CO2 jar for 24 hours at 37°C. Inhibition zone diameters were measured using a digital caliper. RESULTS: Chlorhexidine (0.12%) presented a zone of inhibition between 38.46% to 96.15% for all the three organisms, while Hiora presented zone of inhibition ranging from 33.33% to 69.23% but was resistant at <10 ml of dilution. Pomegranate mouthwash presented a zone of inhibition ranging from 38.48 to 57.69%, but was resistant at <10ml for S.mutans, and <25ml for A.a and S.salivarius. ANOVA test was done to compare the dilution of mouthwashes for a particular organism and Tukey's multiple comparison tests were done to find the exact difference. A significant difference was seen between all the three groups at 50ml and 75 ml of dilution. At 75 ml concentration, a statistical difference was found between Groups B & C and Groups A & B; and at 50 ml between Groups A&C. CONCLUSION: All the three types of mouthwash exhibit anti-microbial activity against biofilm forming organisms but at varying concentrations. Although Chlorhexidine still continues to be the gold standard, pomegranate-containing or herbal mouthwashes can be easily substituted for long term use, avoiding the side effects of chlorhexidine.
INTRODUCTION:Pomegranate is considered "A pharmacy unto itself". Hydrolysable tannins called punicalagins which have free scavenging properties are the most abundant polyphenols found in pomegranate-containing mouthwash. AIM: To evaluate antimicrobial effect of pomegranate- containing mouthwash on oral biofilm-forming bacteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mouthwashes used were divided into three groups- Group A: Chlorhexidine mouthwash (Hexidine); Group B: Herbal Mouthwash (Hiora) and Group C: Pomegranate-containing Mouthwash (Life-extension). Each mouthwash was diluted to five different concentrations. Reference strains of Streptococcus mutans (S.mutans) (ATCC 25175), Streptococcus salivarius (S.salivarius) (ATCC 7073), and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (A.a) (NCTC 9710) were selected as being colonizers in dental biofilm formation. On each culture plate, five wells of 5mm were prepared and mouthwashes with different concentrations were added, followed by incubation in a CO2 jar for 24 hours at 37°C. Inhibition zone diameters were measured using a digital caliper. RESULTS:Chlorhexidine (0.12%) presented a zone of inhibition between 38.46% to 96.15% for all the three organisms, while Hiora presented zone of inhibition ranging from 33.33% to 69.23% but was resistant at <10 ml of dilution. Pomegranate mouthwash presented a zone of inhibition ranging from 38.48 to 57.69%, but was resistant at <10ml for S.mutans, and <25ml for A.a and S.salivarius. ANOVA test was done to compare the dilution of mouthwashes for a particular organism and Tukey's multiple comparison tests were done to find the exact difference. A significant difference was seen between all the three groups at 50ml and 75 ml of dilution. At 75 ml concentration, a statistical difference was found between Groups B & C and Groups A & B; and at 50 ml between Groups A&C. CONCLUSION: All the three types of mouthwash exhibit anti-microbial activity against biofilm forming organisms but at varying concentrations. Although Chlorhexidine still continues to be the gold standard, pomegranate-containing or herbal mouthwashes can be easily substituted for long term use, avoiding the side effects of chlorhexidine.
Authors: G A Van der Weijden; C J Timmer; M F Timmerman; E Reijerse; M S Mantel; U van der Velden Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Honorato Ribeiro-Vidal; María Carmen Sánchez; Andrea Alonso-Español; Elena Figuero; Maria José Ciudad; Luís Collado; David Herrera; Mariano Sanz Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 5.717