| Literature DB >> 33088074 |
Chandana Kalita1, Dina Raja2, Ankumoni Saikia3, Anjan Kumar Saikia4.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Plant extracts are used in folklore medicine from time immemorial to treat different oral diseases. Chemical constituents extracted from these natural resources are gifted with huge opportunities. AIM: The aim of this study is to assess the antibacterial property of Azadirachta indica (Neem), Ocimum sanctum (Tulsi), and Vitex negundo (Pochotia) against oral microorganisms.Entities:
Keywords: Antibacterial; microorganism; traditional medicine
Year: 2020 PMID: 33088074 PMCID: PMC7542067 DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_268_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Conserv Dent ISSN: 0972-0707
Figure 1(a) Soxhlet apparatus. (b) Plant extract
Antibacterial activity of plant extracts against different microorganisms
| Name of microbes | ZI (mm) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aqueous | Acetone | |||||||||||
| 50% | 25% | 50% | 25% | 50% | 25% | 50% | 25% | 50% | 25% | 50% | 25% | |
| KO | 12 | 10 | 15 | 12 | 11 | 8 | 13 | 11 | 16 | 14 | 12 | 10 |
| KK | 12 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 11 | 11 |
| AB | 10 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 9 |
| SP | 10 | 8 | 14 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 11 | 10 | 16 | 13 | 11 | 9 |
| PF | 12 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 13 | 11 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 12 |
| SG | 19 | 17 | 10 | 8 | 15 | 12 | 21 | 19 | 11 | 9 | 17 | 13 |
| EF | 18 | 16 | 20 | 17 | 15 | 13 | 20 | 18 | 23 | 19 | 17 | 15 |
| BS | 17 | 15 | 16 | 14 | 17 | 15 | 19 | 17 | 19 | 16 | 18 | 17 |
ZI: Zone of inhibition, KO: Klebsiella oxytoca, KK: Kocuria kristinae, AB: Acinetobacter boumanni, SP: Sphingomonas paucimobilis, PF: Pseudomonas fluorescens, SG: Streptococcus gordonii, EF: Enterococcus faecalis, BS:Bacillus subtilis, A. indica: Azadirachta indica, V. negundo: Vitex negundo, O. sanctum: Ocimum sanctum
Difference between the mean values of the two groups through paired samples t-test at 5% confidence level
| Name of microbes | ZI of AQ (mm) | SD | ZI of AE (mm) | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KO | 11.33 | 2.34 | 12.67 | 2.16 | 0.001 |
| KK | 10.50 | 1.05 | 11.17 | 0.75 | 0.102 |
| AB | 8.17 | 1.17 | 10.33 | 1.03 | 0.000 |
| SP | 10.33 | 2.34 | 11.67 | 2.50 | 0.001 |
| PF | 11.33 | 1.03 | 12.83 | 0.98 | 0.001 |
| SG | 13.50 | 4.23 | 15.00 | 4.73 | 0.001 |
| EF | 16.50 | 2.43 | 18.67 | 2.73 | 0.000 |
| BS | 15.67 | 1.21 | 17.67 | 1.21 | 0.000 |
ZI: Zone of inhibition, AQ: Aqueous extract, AE: Acetone extract, SD: Standard deviation, KO: Klebsiella oxytoca, KK: Kocuria kristinae, AB: Acinetobacter boumanni, SP: Sphingomonas paucimobilis, PF: Pseudomonas fluorescens, SG: Streptococcus gordonii, EF: Enterococcus faecalis, BS: Bacillus subtilis
Figure 2(a) Zone of inhibition of Kochuria kristinii, (b) Zone of inhibition of Streptococcus gordonii, (c) Zone of inhibition of Enterococcus faecalis, (d) ZI of Bacillus subtilis
Regression model of antibacterial property of plant extract
| Name of microbes | Aqueous extract | Acetone extract | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | Slope | SE | ANOVA P | Inference | Intercept | Slope | SE | ANOVA | Inference | |
| KO | 7.33 | 0.11 | 2.04 | 0.18 | NS | 9.67 | 0.08 | 2.08 | 0.30 | NS |
| KK | 8.00 | 0.07 | 0.58 | 0.02 | S | 10.67 | 0.01 | 0.82 | 0.64 | NS |
| AB | 5.67 | 0.07 | 0.82 | 0.06 | NS | 8.33 | 0.05 | 0.82 | 0.11 | NS |
| SP | 7.33 | 0.08 | 2.31 | 0.34 | NS | 8.67 | 0.08 | 2.52 | 0.38 | NS |
| PF | 9.33 | 0.05 | 0.82 | 0.11 | NS | 11.33 | 0.04 | 0.91 | 0.25 | NS |
| SG | 10.00 | 0.09 | 4.51 | 0.56 | NS | 11.00 | 0.11 | 5.03 | 0.55 | NS |
| EF | 13.00 | 0.09 | 2.31 | 0.28 | NS | 14.67 | 0.11 | 2.58 | 0.27 | NS |
| BS | 12.67 | 0.08 | 0.58 | 0.01 | S | 14.67 | 0.08 | 0.58 | 0.01 | S |
KO: Klebsiella oxytoca, KK: Kocuria kristinae, AB: Acinetobacter boumanni, SP: Sphingomonas paucimobilis, PF: Pseudomonas fluorescens, SG: Streptococcus gordonii, EF: Enterococcus faecalis, BS: Bacillus subtilis, SE: Standard error, ANOVA: Analysis of variance