| Literature DB >> 34204096 |
Watunyoo Buakaew1, Rungnapa Pankla Sranujit2, Chanai Noysang2, Supaporn Sangouam3, Nungruthai Suphrom4, Yordhathai Thongsri1, Pachuen Potup1, Kanchana Usuwanthim1.
Abstract
Oral hygiene and control of microbial plaque biofilm formation are effective methods for preventing gingivitis. Mouthwashes containing leaf extracts of the medicinal plants Citrus hystrix DC. (KL), Moringa oleifera Lam. (MO) and Azadirachta indica A. Juss. (NE) were assessed for oral healthcare and gingivitis adjunctive treatment. Three types of mouthwash were developed; KL, a combination of KL and MO (KL + MO), and a combination of KL, and NE (KL + NE). The mouthwashes were tested in vivo on 47 subjects with gingivitis who were allocated into five groups as (i) placebo, (ii) KL, (iii) KL + MO, (iv) KL + NE, and (v) 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX). Participants were instructed to rinse with herbal mouthwash twice daily for two weeks. Gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), and oral microbial colonies were measured at baseline and 15 days. Results showed that GI and PI of groups (ii)-(iv) significantly decreased over the placebo group, while accumulative reduction percentages of both Staphylococcus spp. and Candida spp. were found in groups (iii) and (iv). Findings indicated that the herbal mouthwashes reduced GI and PI, and showed potential as oral healthcare products.Entities:
Keywords: Azadirachta indica A. Juss; Citrus hystrix DC.; Moringa oleifera Lam.; gingivitis; mouthwash
Year: 2021 PMID: 34204096 PMCID: PMC8226465 DOI: 10.3390/plants10061153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity and total phenolic content of Citrus hystrix DC. (KL), Moringa oleifera Lam. (MO) and Azadirachta indica A. Juss. (NE) crude leaf ethanolic extracts. Results are expressed as Trolox equivalent (µM) and gallic acid equivalent (mg) for antioxidant and total phenolic contents, respectively. Data are presented as mean ± SD. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001 compared to DMSO: dimethyl sulfoxide.
Chemical constituents identified by GC-MS from C. hystrix, M. oleifera and A. indica ethanolic extracts.
| RT (min) | Identified Compounds | Classification | Relative Area (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| 9.29 | Monoterpene | 0.26 | - | - | |
| 10.00 | β-Linalool | Monoterpene | 1.61 | - | - |
| 11.36 | Isopulegol | Monoterpene | 1.06 | - | - |
| 11.51 | Citronellal | Monoterpene | 3.16 | - | - |
| 11.68 | Isopregol | Monoterpene | 0.71 | - | - |
| 13.63 | Citronellol | Monoterpene | 4.28 | - | - |
| 14.37 | Monoterpene | 0.17 | - | - | |
| 16.01 | Citronellic acid | Monoterpene | 0.31 | - | - |
| 16.56 | 2-(2-Hydroxy-2-propanyl)-5-methylcyclohexanol | Monoterpene | 0.59 | - | - |
| 17.02 | Citronellol acetate | Monoterpene | 1.94 | - | - |
| 17.15 | Menthoglycol | Monoterpene | 0.25 | - | - |
| 17.75 | Copaene | Sesquiterpene | 0.50 | - | 0.15 |
| 17.97 | Ethoxycitronellal | Monoterpene | 0.18 | - | - |
| 18.51 | (2 | Monoterpene | 1.88 | - | - |
| 18.91 | β-Caryophyllene | Sesquiterpene | 2.64 | - | - |
| 19.33 | Sucrose | Disaccharide | 0.75 | 24.20 | 4.66 |
| 19.77 | α-Caryophyllene | Sesquiterpene | 0.40 | - | - |
| 20.1 | 1-Dodecanol | Fatty alcohol | - | 0.91 | 0.58 |
| 21.43 | δ-Cadinene | Sesquiterpene | 0.78 | - | - |
| 22.05 | Elemol | Sesquiterpene | 0.20 | - | - |
| 22.31 | Sesquiterpene | 1.08 | - | - | |
| 22.77 | (-)-Spathulenol | Sesquiterpene | 0.38 | - | - |
| 22.92 | Caryophyllene oxide | Sesquiterpene | 0.41 | - | - |
| 23.70 | Ethyl α-d-glucopyranoside | Glycoside | - | 1.59 | 1.31 |
| 25.20 | Dodecyl acrylate | Fatty ester | 0.95 | 4.24 | 1.70 |
| 28.30 | Phytol acetate | Diterpene | - | 1.42 | 1.26 |
| 29.17 | 3,7,11,15-Tetramethyl-2-hexadecen-1-ol | Diterpene | - | - | 0.31 |
| 30.47 | Isophytol | Diterpene | 0.13 | - | - |
| 31.35 | Ethyl palmitate | Fatty acid ethyl ester | 1.21 | 6.09 | 2.45 |
| 31.72 | Lauryl 3-mercaptopropionate | Fatty acid ester | - | 0.59 | 0.21 |
| 31.75 | Tetraprenol | Diterpene | 47.42 | - | - |
| 32.00 | Diterpene | 3.22 | - | - | |
| 33.57 | Phytol | Diterpene | 6.57 | 8.39 | 7.56 |
| 34.44 | Ethyl-9,12-octadecadienoate | Fatty acid ethyl ester | 0.32 | 2.33 | 0.30 |
| 34.56 | Ethyl linolenate | Fatty acid ethyl ester | 1.05 | 18.89 | 3.85 |
| 34.99 | Ethyl stearate | Fatty acid ethyl ester | 0.22 | 0.88 | 0.23 |
| 40.15 | Glycerol β-palmitate | Fatty acid ester | - | - | 0.46 |
| 42.97 | α-Glyceryl linolenate | Fatty acid ester | - | 1.82 | 1.01 |
| 43.5 | 4-(2,3-Dihydroxy-3-methylbutoxy)furo(3,2-g)chromen-7-one | Furanocoumarin | 0.52 | - | - |
| 44.84 | Squalene | Triterpene | 4.12 | - | 0.21 |
| 50.14 | α-Tocopherol | Triterpene | 3.26 | 14.80 | 5.87 |
| 51.52 | Astaxanthin | Tetraterpene | - | - | 8.56 |
| 53.2 | Stigmasterol | Sterol | 0.54 | - | 3.97 |
| 54.83 | β-Sitosterol | Sterol | 1.57 | 3.79 | 1.29 |
| 55.36 | 24- | Sterol | - | 3.11 | 0.66 |
| 55.44 | Dihydrolanosterol | Triterpene | 0.93 | - | - |
| 55.82 | β-Amyrin | Triterpene | - | 2.82 | - |
| 56.05 | Phorbol | Diterpene | - | - | 16.81 |
| 57.31 | Lupeol | Triterpene | 2.10 | - | - |
| 58.91 | Olean-12-ene-3,15,16,21,22,28-hexol | Triterpene | - | - | 5.37 |
| 58.92 | Cycloeucalenol acetate | Triterpene | 2.32 | - | - |
| 60.03 | 14,15β-epoxy-3β,5-dihydroxy-5β-Bufa-20,22-dienolide | Diterpene | - | - | 12.28 |
| 64.25 | Olean-12-ene-3,16,21,22,23,28-hexol | Triterpene | - | - | 18.94 |
Figure 2Chromatogram from GC-MS analysis. C. hystrix DC. (a), Moringa oleifera Lam. (b) and Azadirachta indica A. Juss. (c).
The results of quality control testing of formulated mouthwashes.
| Test Parameters | Test Procedure | Specification | Mouthwash | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KL | KL + MO | KL + NE | |||
| Turbidity | Organoleptic | Transparent | Transparent | Transparent | Transparent |
| Color | Organoleptic | Green | Green | Green | Green |
| pH | pH Meter | 5.5–8.5 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| Lead (Pb) | Based on AOAC (2016) method | <10.0 ppm | Not detected | Not detected | Not detected |
| Arsenic (As) | Based on AOAC (2016) method | <4.0 ppm | <0.5 ppm | Not detected | <0.5 ppm |
| Mercury (Hg) | Based on AOAC (2016) method | <0.5 ppm | Not detected | Not detected | Not detected |
| USP 41 <62> | Absent/1 g. | Absent/1 g. | Absent/1 g. | Absent/1 g. | |
|
| USP 41 <62> | Absent/1 g. | Absent/1 g. | Absent/1 g. | Absent/1 g. |
|
| USP 41 <62> | Absent/1 g. | Absent/1 g. | Absent/1 g. | Absent/1 g. |
|
| USP 41 <62> | Absent/1 g. | Absent/1 g. | Absent/1 g. | Absent/1 g. |
AOAC: The Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, USP: The United States Pharmacopeia.
Figure 3Flow chart of the study.
The characteristics data of subjects and baseline clinical parameters (mean ± SD).
| Parameters | Placebo | KL | KL + MO | KL + NE | CHX | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 23.11 ± 4.43 | 21.40 ± 1.71 | 22.89 ± 5.33 | 23.90 ± 8.14 | 26.44 ± 10.42 | 0.6749 a |
| GI score | 1.21 ± 0.50 | 0.88 ± 0.58 | 1.18 ± 0.54 | 1.03 ± 0.63 | 1.35 ± 0.48 | 0.228 a |
| PI score | 1.63 ± 0.77 | 1.08 ± 0.51 | 1.63 ± 0.65 | 1.33 ± 0.52 | 1.45 ± 0.74 | 0.371 a |
| Sex, Female/Male | 8/1 | 6/4 | 6/3 | 6/4 | 5/4 |
a Kruskal-Wallis test. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Figure 4Intragroup comparison of gingival index (a) and plaque index (b) scores between baseline and day 15 after mouthwash usage by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Data are presented as mean ± SD. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001.
The number of microbial count (×108) in mean ± SD and accumulative reduction percentage comparing to baseline.
| Microorganisms | Intervals | Placebo | KL | KL + MO | KL + NE | CHX |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 21 ± 38 | 91 ± 188 | 62 ± 69 | 132 ± 148 | 28 ± 39 | |
| Day 15 | 78 ± 114 | 109 ± 176 | 46 ± 87 | 83 ± 161 | 27 ± 48 | |
| Accumulative reduction percentage | 12.66 | 30.14 | 45.53 | 33.23 | 54.11 | |
| Baseline | 1 ± 0 | 0 ± 1 | 1 ± 2 | 1 ± 1 | 8 ± 23 | |
| Day 15 | 1 ± 0 | 1 ± 3 | 0 ± 0 | 1 ± 1 | 2 ± 5 | |
| Accumulative reduction percentage | 0 | 0 | 20 | 35.83 | 17.63 |