| Literature DB >> 35783492 |
Fatemeh Lavaee1, Armin Moqadas2, Farzan Modarresi3, Massoumeh Nowrouzi4.
Abstract
Statement of the Problem: There are global efforts for introducing a new herbal antimicrobial agent with minimal side effects. There are some reports about the antimicrobial properties of Pimpinella anisum and Oregano Vulgare. Purpose: In this study, the antimicrobial properties of Pimpinella anisum and Oregano Vulgare have been assessed. Material and Method: In this experimental in vitro study, the dental plaque samples were collected from children aged 3 to 5 years old who were referred to a private dental office with diagnosis of dental caries. After determination of the bacterial colonies of Streptococcus sanguinis, Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus salivarius, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of ethanolic and methanolic extracts of Pimpinella anisum and Oregano vulgare were measured by macrodilution and microdilution methods.Entities:
Keywords: Origanum; Pimpinella; Streptococcus mutans; Streptococcus salivarius; Streptococcus sanguis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35783492 PMCID: PMC9206703 DOI: 10.30476/DENTJODS.2021.85691.1145
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Dent (Shiraz) ISSN: 2345-6418
Figure 1a: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of patient isolated Streptococcus mutans species in this study. The electrophoresis agarose gel was stained with 0.5 µg/ml ethidium bromide and the figure was prepared by UV gel documentation system. Positive control Streptococcus mutans (ATCC 25175) (433bp) is also seen in this figure. b: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of patient isolated Streptococcus sanguinis species in this study. Positive control (313bp) Streptococcus sanguinis (ATCC 10556) is also seen in this figure. c: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of patient isolated Streptococcus salivarius species in this study. Positive control Streptococcus salivarius (ATCC9759) (544bp) is also observed in this figure
The patients’ isolation bacteria distribution
|
|
|
| Number of bacteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| + | - | - | 15 |
| - | + | - | 3 |
| + | + | - | 4 |
| + | - | + | 3 |
| - | + | + | 2 |
| - | - | + | 5 |
| - | - | - | 10 |
| + | + | + | 18 |
| 60 | ALL |
Mean values of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of 3 extract on 3 bacteria in 60 patients
| Bacteria |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extracts | MIC (µg/ml) | MBC (µg/ml) | MIC (µg/ml) | MBC (µg/ml) | MIC (µg/ml) | MBC (µg/ml) |
|
| 22.000 (SD*=13.8119) | 48.750 (SD=35.0229) | 33.571 (SD=16.3785) | 65.714 (SD =34.365) | 47.407 (SD=22.9703) | 88.889 (SD=46.1880) |
|
| 122.000 (SD=98.793) | 252.00 (SD=197.253) | 127.14 (SD=80.040) | 274.29 (SD=154.618) | 145.19 (SD=93.577) | 266.67 (SD=180.256) |
| Combination | 6.4063 (SD=5.7691) | 14.50 (SD=11.024) | 12.32 (SD=5.69) | 36.43 (SD=18.701) | 8.241 (SD=4.4297) | 22.96 (SD=17.827) |
* SD: Standard Deviation
Figure 2Comparison of the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the 3 extracts on 3 bacteria
Figure 3Comparison of the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of 3 extracts on 3 bacteria
The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of 3 extracts and chlorhexidine on 3 standard bacteria
| Bacteria | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extracts | MIC (µg/ml) | MBC (µg/ml) | MIC (µg/ml) | MBC (µg/ml) | MIC (µg/ml) | MBC (µg/ml) |
|
| 10 | 20 | 20 | 40 | 20 | 40 |
|
| 80 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 320 |
| Combination | 2.5 | 10 | 10 | 40 | 5 | 10 |
| Chlorhexidine | 50 | 50 | 25 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
Figure 4Comparison of the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 3 extracts and chlorhexidine on 3 standard bacteria
Figure 5Comparison of the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of 3 extracts and chlorhexidine on 3 standard bacteria