International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Assessment of Antimicrobial Activity of Propolis and Chlorhexidine on Salivary Isolates of Candida albicans and Streptococcus mutans in Children with Severe Early Childhood Caries: An In Vitro Study

Venkatesh Kodgi, Priya Shetty, Charisma Thimmaiah, Nithya Annie Thomas, Bettina Ashwini Vergis, Kaushik Shetty

Keywords : Candida albicans, Chlorhexidine, Propolis, Severe early childhood caries, Streptococcus mutans

Citation Information : Kodgi V, Shetty P, Thimmaiah C, Thomas NA, Vergis BA, Shetty K. Comparative Assessment of Antimicrobial Activity of Propolis and Chlorhexidine on Salivary Isolates of Candida albicans and Streptococcus mutans in Children with Severe Early Childhood Caries: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (5):591-595.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2875

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 22-08-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans are the chief microbes associated with severe early childhood caries (S-ECC). Diverse antimicrobial agents are widely used to prevent ECC, and a quest for newer natural products has been on the rise in the recent past. Aim: To estimate the antimicrobial activity of propolis with chlorhexidine on salivary specimens from children with S-ECC in vitro. Materials and methods: A total of 60 children with S-ECC were designated. Salivary samples of 30 children (group I) were inoculated onto mitis salivarius agar (MSA) to isolate S. mutans. Another 30 samples (group II) were inoculated on sabouraud's dextrose agar and subcultured on HiCrome Candida differential agar to isolate C. albicans. Sensitivity testing for 0.2% chlorhexidine and 10% propolis extract was done using the agar well diffusion technique using Mueller–Hinton agar medium. The antimicrobial effect was evaluated by calculating the diameter of the zone of inhibition surrounding the well. Results: All saliva samples collected from groups I and II showed growth of S. mutans and C. albicans, respectively. All cultured microbes were sensitive to 0.2% chlorhexidine and 10% propolis extract. The mean inhibition zone for S. mutans with chlorhexidine was 14.57 ± 0.63 mm, and with propolis, 11.93 ± 0.52 mm. The mean zone of inhibition for C. albicans with chlorhexidine was 12.83 ± 0.59 mm, and with propolis, 9.50 ± 0.73 mm. Chlorhexidine consistently showed statistically significantly larger zones of inhibition and hence appeared to be a more potent antimicrobial agent than propolis extract for both S. mutans and C. albicans. However, propolis has irrefutable action against both S. mutans and C. albicans. Conclusion: Propolis may be an acceptable substitute for chlorhexidine for long-term use as it has demonstrated antimicrobial activity and fewer side effects. Hence, this Association of Physicians of India herbal drug can be incorporated into mouthwashes and toothpaste to reduce microbial counts.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Soneta SP, Hugar SM, Hallikerimath S, et al. A comparative evaluation of remineralizing potential of commonly used fluoridated toothpaste, herbal toothpaste, toothpaste with zinc hydroxyapatite, and toothpaste with calcium sucrose phosphate in children: a scanning electronic microscopic study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;15(Suppl 2):S158–S163. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2143
  2. Hurley E, Barrett MPJ, Kinirons M, et al. Comparison of the salivary and dentinal microbiome of children with severe-early childhood caries to the salivary microbiome of caries-free children. BMC Oral Health 2019;19(1):13. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0693-1
  3. Liu JF, Hsu CL, Chen LR. Correlation between salivary mutans streptococci, lactobacilli and the severity of early childhood caries. J Dent Sci 2019;14(4):389–394. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2019.06.003
  4. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Policy on early childhood caries (ECC): Consequences and preventive strategies. The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry. Chicago, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry; 2022:90–93.
  5. Lakade LS, Shah P, Shirol DD, et al. Comparison of antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine and combination mouth rinse in reducing the Mutans streptococcus count in plaque. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014;32(2):91–96. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.130780
  6. Guru A, Bhola M, Singh G, et al. Comparative evaluation of the effect of propolis and chlorhexidine mouthwashes on Streptococcus mutans counts in saliva: an in vivo study. AMEI's Curr Trends Diagn Treat 2019;3(1):13–17. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10055-0062
  7. Ilango P, Arulpari M, Madonna M, et al. Chlorhexidine-a miracle molecule. Int J Curr Res Rev 2013;5(18):26–34.
  8. Sajjan P, Laxminarayan N, Kar PP, et al. Chlorhexidine as an antimicrobial agent in dentistry–a review. Oral Health Dent Manag 2016;15(2):93–100.
  9. Fiorillo L. Chlorhexidine gel use in the oral district: a systematic review. Gels 2019;5(2):31. DOI: 10.3390/gels5020031
  10. Marya CM, Chopra M, Oberoi SS, et al. Comparison of antimicrobial efficacy of Brazilian propolis with chlorhexidine and sodium fluoride against common oral pathogens: an in vitro study. Jundishapur J Nat Pharm Prod 2015;10(2):e19069. DOI: 10.17795/jjnpp-19069
  11. Helmy N, Hafez S, Farid A. Efficacy of licorice on salivary Streptococcus mutans levels vs chlorhexidine mouthwash in high caries risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021;22(8):914–921.
  12. Akca AE, Akca G, Topçu FT, et al. The comparative evaluation of the antimicrobial effect of propolis with chlorhexidine against oral pathogens: an in vitro study. BioMed Res Int 2016;2016:3627463. DOI: 10.1155/2016/3627463
  13. Almaz ME, Sönmez IŞ, Ökte Z, et al. Efficacy of a sugar-free herbal lollipop for reducing salivary Streptococcus mutans levels: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21(3):839–845. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1827-y
  14. Braakhuis A. Evidence on the health benefits of supplemental propolis. Nutrients 2019;11(11):2705. DOI: 10.3390/nu11112705
  15. Šuran J, Cepanec I, Mašek T, et al. Propolis extract and its bioactive compounds-from traditional to modern extraction technologies. Molecules 2021;26(10):2930. DOI: 10.3390/molecules26102930
  16. Solís C, Santos A, Nart J, et al. 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash with an antidiscoloration system versus 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash: a prospective clinical comparative study. J Periodontol 2011;82(1):80–85. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100289
  17. Przybyłek I, Karpiński TM. Antibacterial properties of propolis. Molecules 2019;24(11):2047. DOI: 10.3390/molecules24112047
  18. Otręba M, Marek Ł, Tyczyńska N, et al. Propolis as natural product in the oral cavity bacterial infections treatment: a systematic review. Appl Sci 2022;12(19):10123. DOI: 10.3390/app121910123
  19. Bouchelaghem S. Propolis characterization and antimicrobial activities against Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans: a review. Saudi J Biol Sci 2022;29(4):1936–1946. DOI: 10.3390/app121910123
  20. Devequi-Nunes D, Machado BAS, Barreto GA, et al. Chemical characterization and biological activity of six different extracts of propolis through conventional methods and supercritical extraction. PLoS One 2018;13(12):e0207676. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207676
  21. Alkhaled A, Alsabek L, Al-assaf M, et al. Effect of chlorhexidine, honey and propolis on Streptococcus mutans counts: in vitro study. Dentistry 3000 2021;9(1):107–117. DOI: 10.5195/d3000.2021.166
  22. Srinivas S, Gujjari AK, Kenganora M, et al. Analysis of antimicrobial activity of Karnataka propolis against oral pathogens - an in vitro study. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2021;25(3):449–456. DOI: 10.4103/jomfp.jomfp_285_21
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.