Premium
An in vitro antimicrobial comparison of miswak extract with commercially available non‐alcohol mouthrinses
Author(s) -
Almas K,
Skaug N,
Ahmad I
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
international journal of dental hygiene
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.674
H-Index - 38
eISSN - 1601-5037
pISSN - 1601-5029
DOI - 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2004.00111.x
Subject(s) - streptococcus mutans , medicine , antimicrobial , cetylpyridinium chloride , traditional medicine , staphylococcus epidermidis , chlorhexidine , dentistry , antibacterial activity , microbiology and biotechnology , staphylococcus aureus , chemistry , bacteria , biology , pulmonary surfactant , biochemistry , genetics
The aim of this study was to assess the antimicrobial activity of eight commercially available mouthrinses and 50% miswak extract against seven microorganisms. Corsodyl, Alprox, Oral‐B advantage, Florosept, Sensodyne, Aquafresh Mint, Betadine and Emoform mouthrinses were used while 50% aqueous extract of miswak ( Salvadora persica ) was used against Streptococcus faecalis , Streptococcus pyogenis , Streptococcus mutans , Candida albicans , Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis . The ditch plate method was used to test the antimicrobial activity. Inhibition zones of microorganisms around ditches were measured in millimetres. Range, mean and standard deviations were used for comparison of antimicrobial activity. Mouthrinses containing chlorhexidine was with maximum antibacterial activity, while cetylpyridinium chloride mouthrinses were with moderate and miswak extract was with low antibacterial activity. Further research is needed for the substantivity of these mouthrinses and further in vivo / in vitro studies are needed using Biofilm model to substantiate present findings. Dental professionals must exercise caution and provide guidance in assisting their patients in making informed choices regarding their use of mouthrinses for clinical efficacy.