3.8 Article

Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Coffee Extract and 0.2% Chlorhexidine Mouthwash on the Periodontal Pathogens Porphyromonas Gingivalis, Prevotella Intermedia, Fusobacterium Nucleatum and Aggregatibacter Actinomycetemcomitans: An In Vitro Study

期刊

ADVANCES IN HUMAN BIOLOGY
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 99-103

出版社

MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS & MEDIA PVT LTD
DOI: 10.4103/2321-8568.190316

关键词

Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans; chlorhexidine; Porphyromonas gingivalis

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Coffee extract has demonstrated significant antimicrobial properties against various Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. 0.2% chlorhexidine, a potent allopathic reagent, in the mouthwash form is considered the gold standard of chemical plaque control. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of different concentrations of coffee extract with 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash on the following Gram-negative periodontal pathogens: Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Fusobacterium nucleatum and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans under in vitro conditions. Materials and Methods: Bacterial suspensions of P. gingivalis, P. intermedia, F. nucleatum and A. actinomycetemcomitans were inoculated in agar plates with four, 5 mm diameter wells. Various concentrations of coffee extract and chlorhexidine mouthwash were added into wells in different plates and then incubated at 37 degrees C for 48 h. The diameter of zones of inhibition was measured, and statistical analysis was done. Results: 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash showed greatest zone of inhibition against all periodontal pathogens. Coffee at a concentration of 20% and 15% showed activity against P. gingivalis, P. intermedia and A. actinomycetemcomitans. F. nucleatum was resistant to all concentrations of coffee extract. Conclusion: Coffee extract possesses antimicrobial activity against the various periodontal pathogens though not as eficacious as the standard chlorhexidine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据