International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  17 (2024)
Volume  16 (2023)
Volume  15 (2022)
Volume  14 (2021)
Volume  13 (2020)
Volume  12 (2019)
Volume  11 (2018)
Volume  10 (2017)
Volume  9 (2016)
Volume  8 (2015)
Volume  7 (2014)
Volume  6 (2013)
Volume  5 (2012)
Volume  4 (2011)
Volume  3 (2010)
Volume  2 (2009)
Volume  1 (2008)
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Elettaria cardamomum (0.5%) Mouthwash, Camellia sinensis (0.5%) Mouthwash, and 0.12% Chlorhexidine Gluconate Mouthwash against Streptococcus mutans: An In Vitro Study

Sayali Deolikar, Ashwin Jawdekar, Tanvi Saraf, Lakshmi Thribhuvanan

Keywords : Antimicrobial efficacy, Camellia sinesis mouthwash, Cardamom mouthwash, Chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash, Elettaria, Streptococcus mutans, Minimum inhibitory concentration, Zone of inhibition

Citation Information : Deolikar S, Jawdekar A, Saraf T, Thribhuvanan L. Comparative Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Elettaria cardamomum (0.5%) Mouthwash, Camellia sinensis (0.5%) Mouthwash, and 0.12% Chlorhexidine Gluconate Mouthwash against Streptococcus mutans: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (4):461-466.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2832

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 18-07-2024

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


Abstract

Aim: The in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the antimicrobial efficacy of Elettaria cardamomum (0.5%) mouthwash, Camellia sinensis (0.5%) mouthwash, and 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash against Streptococcus mutans. Materials and methods: A total of 60 samples of the five mouthwash preparations were prepared to check for their antimicrobial efficacy. The zone of inhibition (ZOI) against S. mutans was measured as a diameter in mm, and the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of mouthwash preparations was measured as μg/mL. All the groups were compared statistically using the Mann–Whitney U test and the Kruskal–Wallis test. Results: The highest ZOI was observed in group V chlorhexidine gluconate [mean: 20.8, standard deviation (SD): 0.58], followed by group III C. sinensis (alcohol-free) (mean: 15.5, SD: 0.67), group IV C. sinensis (alcohol-based) (mean: 14.08, SD: 0.66), and group II E. cardamomum (alcohol-based) (mean: 13.2, SD: 0.45). The least ZOI was observed in group I E. cardamomum (alcohol-free) (mean: 10.7, SD: 0.45). This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The MIC was similar in all the groups (p = 0.13). Conclusion: Chlorhexidine gluconate 0.12% mouthwash showed the best antimicrobial action; however, C. sinensis mouthwash showed potential against S. mutans. E. cardamomum mouthwash exhibited limited antimicrobial activity.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB. Dental caries. Lancet 2007;369(9555):51–59. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60031-2
  2. Innes NP, Clarkson JE, Douglas GV, et al. Child caries management: a randomized controlled trial in dental practice. J Dent Res 2020;99(1):36–43. DOI: 10.1177/0022034519888882
  3. Gill J. Dental caries: The disease and its clinical management, third edition. Br Dent J 2016;221(8):443–443.
  4. Fejerskov O. Changing paradigms in concepts on dental caries: consequences for oral health care. Caries Res 2004;38(3):182–191. DOI: 10.1159/000077753
  5. Simón-Soro A, Mira A. Solving the etiology of dental caries. Trends Microbiol 2015;23(2):76–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2014.10.010
  6. Krzyściak W, Jurczak A, Kościelniak D, et al. The virulence of Streptococcus mutans and the ability to form biofilms. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2014;33(4):499–515. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-013-1993-7
  7. Jothika M, Vanajassun PP, Someshwar B. Effectiveness of probiotic, chlorhexidine and fluoride mouthwash against Streptococcus mutans–randomized, single-blind, in vivo study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2015;5(7):44. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.156153
  8. Lang NP, Hotz P, Graf H, et al. Effects of supervised chlorhexidine mouthrinses in children: a longitudinal clinical trial. J Periodontal Res 1982;17(1):101–111. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.1982.tb01135.x
  9. Walsh T, Jeronimo N, Deborah M. Chlorhexidine treatment for the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;2015(4):CD008457. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008457.pub2
  10. James P, Worthington HV, Parnell C, et al. Chlorhexidine mouthrinse as an adjunctive treatment for gingival health. Cochrane Database Systema Rev 2017;3(3):CD008676. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008676.pub2
  11. Karadağ AE, İpekçi E, Yağcılar AP, et al. Antimicrobial activities of mouthwashes obtained from various combinations of Elettaria cardamomum Maton., Lavandula angustifolia Mill. and Salvia triloba L. essential oils. Nat Vol Ess Oils 2020;7(1):9-17. DOI: 10.37929/nveo.685474
  12. Erawati S, Rahardjo A, Pintauli S. Clinical efficacy of a new mouthwash containing essential oil of cardamom in reducing volatile sulphur coumpounds concentration. Int J Clin Prev Dent 2014;10(4):237–242.
  13. Barroso H, Ramalhete R, Domingues A, et al. Inhibitory activity of a green and black tea blend on Streptococcus mutans. J Oral Microbiol 2018;10(1):1481322. DOI: 10.1080/20002297.2018.1481322
  14. Saini R, Saini S, Sharma S. Biofilm: a dental microbial infection. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2011;2(1):71–75. DOI: 10.4103/0976-9668.82317
  15. Marsh PD. Microbiology of dental plaque biofilms and their role in oral health and caries. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54(3):441–454. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2010.03.002
  16. Horst JA, Tanzer JM, Milgrom PM. Fluorides and other preventive strategies for tooth decay. Dent Clin North Am 2018;62(2):207–234. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2017.11.003
  17. Keijser JA, Verkade H, Timmerman MF, et al. Comparison of 2 commercially available chlorhexidine mouthrinses. J Periodontol 2003;74(2):214–218. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2003.74.2.214
  18. de Souza LB, de Aquino SG, de Souza PPC, et al. Cytotoxic effects of different concentrations of chlorhexidine. Am J Dent 2007;20(6):400–404.
  19. Goyal AK, Bhat M, Sharma M, et al. Effect of green tea mouth rinse on Streptococcus mutans in plaque and saliva in children: an in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2017;35(1):41–46. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.199227
  20. Neturi RS, R S, B VS, et al. Effects of green tea on Streptococcus mutans counts- a randomised control trail. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(11):ZC128–ZC130. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/10963.5211
  21. Haydari M, Bardakci AG, Koldsland OC, et al. Comparing the effect of 0.06%-, 0.12% and 0.2% chlorhexidine on plaque, bleeding and side effects in an experimental gingivitis model: a parallel group, double masked randomized clinical trial. BMC oral health 2017;17(1):118. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-017-0400-7
  22. Richards D. Chlorhexidine mouthwash plaque levels and gingival health. Evid Based Dent 2017;18(2):37–38. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401232
  23. Van Strydonck DA, Slot DE, Van der Velden U, et al. Effect of a chlorhexidine mouthrinse on plaque, gingival inflammation and staining in gingivitis patients: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2012;39(11):1042–1055. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01883.x
  24. Anil S, Bhandi SH, Chalisserry EP, et al. Chemical plaque control strategies in the prevention of biofilm-associated oral diseases. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(4):337–343.
  25. Vinod KS, Sunil KS, Sethi P, et al. A novel herbal formulation versus chlorhexidine mouthwash in efficacy against oral microflora. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2018;8(2):184–190. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_59_18
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.