2020Journal of Dr. YSR University of Health Sciences.Open access

Differences in antimicrobial activity of 0.2% Chlorhexidine mouthwash and a Herbal mouth rinse formulation—A salivary bacterial counts study

Subramaniam M. Rao, C Naresh Kumar, PuneetN Jumani, AbhilashaS Patil, RachakondaSuresh Kumar, Rekha Marullappa

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Background: Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) mouthwash has earned eponym of gold standard to treat or prevent periodontal disease. However, it has been reported to have local side-effects on long-term use. To explore a herbal alternative, the present study was carried out to evaluate the clinical antimicrobial activity of two mouth rinses. One containing 0.2% CHX and other containing herbal mouth rinse (HM). Methods: This randomized, crossover salivary bacterial counts, was carried out on a sample of 10 healthy volunteers rinsed for 1 minute with 0.2% CHX and for 1 minute with HM. Saliva samples were obtained before rinsing, and after 5 min, and 1, 3, 5 and 7 h. These samples were cultured both aerobically and anaerobically. Percentages of survival, in regard to baseline, were calculated for each time point. Results: Results were available both for aerobic and anaerobic salivary bacteria. Statistically significant difference is observed between Herbal and 0.2% CHX mouth wash at 1 hr ( P < 0.05), 3 hrs ( P < 0.01), 5 hrs ( P < 0.01) as well as at 7 hrs ( P < 0.001) and HM and 0.2% CHX mouth wash at 5 minutes after using mouth wash ( P < 0.05), 1 hr ( P < 0.05), 3 hrs ( P < 0.01), 5 hrs ( P < 0.01) as well as at 7 hrs ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: Based on the results, this clinical study demonstrated that significant reduction of microbial activity was observed in 0.2% CHX when compared with HM containing bibhitaka, nagavali and salvodora persica as main ingredients.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Background: Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) mouthwash has earned eponym of gold standard to treat or prevent periodontal disease. However, it has been reported to have local side-effects on long-term use. To explore a herbal alternative, the present study was carried out to evaluate the clinical antimicrobial activity of two mouth rinses. One containing 0.2% CHX and other containing herbal mouth rinse (HM). Methods: This randomized, crossover salivary bacterial counts, was carried out on a sample of 10 healthy volunteers rinsed for 1 minute with 0.2% CHX and for 1 minute with HM. Saliva samples were obtained before rinsing, and after 5 min, and 1, 3, 5 and 7 h. These samples were cultured both aerobically and anaerobically. Percentages of survival, in regard to baseline, were calculated for each time point. Results: Results were available both for aerobic and anaerobic salivary bacteria. Statistically significant difference is observed between Herbal and 0.2% CHX mouth wash at 1 hr ( P < 0.05), 3 hrs ( P < 0.01), 5 hrs ( P < 0.01) as well as at 7 hrs ( P < 0.001) and HM and 0.2% CHX mouth wash at 5 minutes after using mouth wash ( P < 0.05), 1 hr ( P < 0.05), 3 hrs ( P < 0.01), 5 hrs ( P < 0.01) as well as at 7 hrs ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: Based on the results, this clinical study demonstrated that significant reduction of microbial activity was observed in 0.2% CHX when compared with HM containing bibhitaka, nagavali and salvodora persica as main ingredients.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Background: Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) mouthwash has earned eponym of gold standard to treat or prevent periodontal disease. However, it has been reported to have local side-effects on long-term use. To explore a herbal alternative, the present study was carried out to evaluate the clinical antimicrobial activity of two mouth rinses. One containing 0.2% CHX and other containing herbal mouth rinse (HM). Methods: This randomized, crossover salivary bacterial counts, was carried out on a sample of 10 healthy volunteers rinsed for 1 minute with 0.2% CHX and for 1 minute with HM. Saliva samples were obtained before rinsing, and after 5 min, and 1, 3, 5 and 7 h. These samples were cultured both aerobically and anaerobically. Percentages of survival, in regard to baseline, were calculated for each time point. Results: Results were available both for aerobic and anaerobic salivary bacteria. Statistically significant difference is observed between Herbal and 0.2% CHX mouth wash at 1 hr ( P < 0.05), 3 hrs ( P < 0.01), 5 hrs ( P < 0.01) as well as at 7 hrs ( P < 0.001) and HM and 0.2% CHX mouth wash at 5 minutes after using mouth wash ( P < 0.05), 1 hr ( P < 0.05), 3 hrs ( P < 0.01), 5 hrs ( P < 0.01) as well as at 7 hrs ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: Based on the results, this clinical study demonstrated that significant reduction of microbial activity was observed in 0.2% CHX when compared with HM containing bibhitaka, nagavali and salvodora persica as main ingredients.

Key concepts: Chlorhexidine, Medicine, Saliva, Antimicrobial, Antiseptic, Mouth rinse, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Dentistry

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Differences in antimicrobial activity of 0.2% Chlorhexidine mouthwash and a Herbal mouth rinse formulation—A salivary bacterial counts study — Research Paper | ScholarLens