Evaluation of Some Indian Commercial Dentifrices for their Antimicrobial Potential

Deepak N. Patil

Sanjivani Institute of Pharmacy and Research, Kopargaon, India-423603

ABSTRACT:

Antimicrobial activity of commercial available dentifrices six synthetic, three herbal and seven mouth rinse formulation were tested against some anticariogenic microorganism namely Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Candida albicans using a disk diffusion method and Chlorhexdin was used as standard. The result indicated that the antimicrobial activity of chemical synthetic dentifrices was found more potent than herbal dentifrices among the mouth rinse formulation was showed almost equivalent antimicrobial activity to the chemical synthetic dentifrices.

KEYWORDS: antimicrobial activity, dentifrices, disk diffusion method

INTRODUCTION:

It is generally believed that oral cavity is always at a risk of infection with bacterial pathogens associated with oral cavity. Streptococcus constitutes 60 %to 90% of the bacteria that colonize the teeth in the first 4h after professional cleaning. ^[1] Other early colonizers include Actinomyces spp., Capnocytophage spp., Eikenella spp., Haemophilus spp. Prevotella spp., Propinobacterium spp., and Veillonella spp., many of the physical interaction that occurs between the organisms of this community are known. The ability to bind to other early colonizers and to host molecules may confer an advantage on these viridians streptococci in establishing early dental plaque. ^[2]

A wide range of human infection are caused by dental biofilm like dental carries, peridental, otitis media, musculoskeletal infection ,necrotizing fasciitis, billiary track infection. Characteristics of these infections is the persistence and chronicity of the infections as well as the difficulty in their eradication. ^{[3, 15]} It has been found that 65% of the human infections that infect human being are caused by the microorganisms living inside the biofilm. ^[4] Dental plaque is the community of microorganisms found on a tooth surface as a biofilm, embedded in a matrix of polymers of host and bacterial origin ^[5,6]. Clinical relevance is the fact that biofilms are less susceptible to antimicrobial agents, while microbial communities can display enhanced pathogenicity (pathogenic synergism) ^{[7, 13]}.

The structure of the plaque biofilm might restrict the penetration of antimicrobial agents, while bacteria growing on a surface grow slowly and display a novel phenotype, one consequence of which is a reduced sensitivity to inhibitors^{[8,
12, 14]}. Plaque is natural and contributes (like the resident microflora of all other sites in the body) to the normal development of the physiology and defenses of the host ^{[9, 10, 11]}.

Numerous studies have been undertaken to determine the composition of the plaque microflora from diseased sites in order to try and identify those species directly implicated in causing pathology^[16,17]. The objective the present study was, therefore, undertaken to evaluate the antibacterial activity of various dentrices against cariogenic organisms S. mutans and L. acidophilus.

MATERIAL AND METHOD:

Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Candida albicans were procured form Institute of Microbial Technology (IMTECH, Chandigarh) Pure cultures of Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, developed in Nutrient broth and L. acidophilus in MRS broth, respectively, at 37° C, 24 h, were taken as inoculum.The dentifrices Colgate Strong Teeth, Pepsodent Close up, Colgate gel, Cibaca, Anchor (chemical synthetic) Babool Dabur red Meswak, (herbal synthetic) Hexidine, Listerine, Triguard, Senquel, Wokadine, Tantum Betadine Sflo (Mouth rinse) were obtained from local market. The composition of these dentifrices is given in [Table -1]. All dentifrices (2.0 gm) were dissolved in 10 ml sterile distilled water to give 200 mg ml -1 concentration of stock solution, respectively. Half a milliliter of this stock containing 100 mg dentifrice was used for the assay of antibacterial activity. The assay was performed by disk diffusion method ^[18].The antibacterial activity was measured as size of zone of inhibition (in millimeter). Three replicates were maintained for each dentifrice, and the experiment was repeated thrice.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

The results obtained in this study suggest differences among the tested dentifrices regarding antimicrobial properties. Each test comparing zones of inhibition amongst the oral bacteria, Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans was accompanied by the dentifrices exhibiting a range of effectiveness

The antimicrobial activity shown on the agar plates varied among the all dentifrice product. The positive control produce significantly size inhibition zone for all four microorganisms. Among the 16 test dentifrices it was observed that most of the antimicrobial activity at 24 hrs; detected little additional inhibition at 48 hrs. Colgate total produce larger zone of inhibition against all four microorganism. Colgate total shows maximum zone of inhibition i.e. 65.0 mm after 24 hrs against Staphylococcus aureus.While in mouth washes Hexidine produces larger zone of inhibition against all the four microorganisms. Hexidine shows maximum zone of inhibition i.e. 21.2 mm against Staphylococcus aureus which is equal to the standard (Chlorhexidine gluconate). Pepsodent produces smaller zone than Colgate total, but it also gives a good result with larger zone i.e. 60 mm after 24 hrs.While in mouth washes Triguard produces second largest zone of inhibition after the Hexidine. Anchor shows good zone of inhibition against Candida albicans, but against Streptococcus mutans, Staphylococcus aureus, Lactobacillus acidophilus. All the dentifrice products were very effectively against Staphylococcus aureus, and than against Streptococcus mutans. But all the dentifrice products were not as effective against Candida albicans and Lactobacillus acidophilus as compare to other two organisms. The effectiveness of all the dentifrice products against microorganisms is in this order; all the dentifrice products are very effective against Staphylococcus aureus, after that Streptococcus mutans, after that Candida albicans and in last against Lactobacillus acidophilus. It was found that, in tooth paste Pepsodent shows larger zone of inhibition i.e. 24.7 mm, while Colgate total also shows good result i.e. 23.7 mm. In Mouth wash Hexidine shows larger zone of inhibition i.e. 15.5 mm. The effectiveness of all dentifrice products is given below in descending order.

In herbal products Meswak shows larger zone i.e. 42.2 mm at 70% concentration than other two herbal products i.e. Babool and Dabur red. The antimicrobial activity Commercial Dentifrices observed on the agar plates varied greatly among the all herbal dentifrices tested. The positive control produced significantly sized inhibition zones for all four microorganisms. The negative control produced no observable inhibitory effect. Among the chemical synthetic dentifrices, most of the dentifrices shows significant the antimicrobial activity against S. mutans and S. aureus. Herbal dentifrices produced a significantly larger inhibition zone than the positive control. Therefore, the results for this dentifrice indicate chemical synthetic dentifrice found potent antibacterial agent help to reduce the oral infection cause by Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Candida albicans

Table: 1 Antibacterial activity of Commercial Dentifrices (Zone of inhibition measured in mm)
Dentifrices		*Streptococcus mutants*		*Staphylococcus aureus*		*Candida albicans*		*Lactobacillus acidophilus*		Direct mouth flora
Dentifrices		After 24 hrs	After 48 hrs	After 24 hrs	After 48 hrs	After 24 hrs	After 48 hrs	After 24 hrs	After 48 hrs	After 24 hrs	After 48 hrs
Synthetic tooth pastes	Colgate Strong Teeth	29.5	30.5	65.0	70.0	27.7	30.7	29.0	31.2	21.5	23.7
	Pepsodent	28.2	29.2	60.0	68.0	30.0	30.0	26.0	27.7	23.2	24.7
	Close up	20.7	24.5	24.3	25.2	22.0	22.3	19.0	22.2	16.0	17.7
	Colgate gel	27.7	28.2	24.5	24.7	25.0	25.2	25.5	28.0	20.7	21.2
	Cibaca	21.5	23.2	21.0	21.5	22.0	23.1	24.2	24.7	19.5	20.0
	Anchor	21.7	22.3	58.0	64.5	31.2	32.5	27.0	28.5	22.5	23.2
Herbal tooth pastes	Babool	17.1	18.1	20.0	22.0	21.0	21.0	20.0	20.7	15.7	16.2
	Dabur red	20.5	22.2	19.2	19.6	21.7	22.7	21.7	23.7	18.5	18.7
	Meswak	21.5	23.2	21.0	22.3	20.7	19.1	24.7	25.0	17.7	18.2
Mouth washes	Hexidine	14.0	18.5	20.5	21.2	14.5	15.2	21.5	22.0	14.5	15.5
	Listerine	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	10.0	10.5	10.7	11.3
	Triguard	13.7	14.7	18.2	18.5	11.7	13.0	17.6	23.0	12.5	13.2
	Senquel	7.0	7.3	11.0	11.5	0.0	0.0	7.8	8.0	7.5	8.1
	Wokadine	0.0	0.0	9.5	9.7	8.0	8.5	10.0	10.7	7.7	8.5
	Tantum	6.2	6.2	8.2	8.5	8.2	8.7	12.2	11.7	13.2	13.5
	Betadine	6.7	6.7	9.3	9.7	9.0	9.0	11.5	12.0	11.5	11.7
	Sflo	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	9.5	10.0	14.0	14.5
Control CHG		16.5	17.5	20.7	21.2	15.2	15.8	19.7	20.5	14.7	15.9

CONCLUSIONS:

After conducting our study, we came to the following conclusions: the antimicrobial properties of chemical synthetic dentifrices found excellent antibacterial activity, where as herbal dentifrices less antimicrobial potential against one or more of the four oral microorganisms: Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Candida albicans.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

The authors are grateful to Dr S.B. Dahikar, Department of Pharmaceutical Microbiology for providing facilities and help for preparation of manuscript

REFERENCES:

1. Skidmore-Roth L. Mosby’s handbook of herbs and natural supplements. St. Louis: Mosby; 2001.

2. Presser AM. Pharmacist’s guide to medicinal herbs. Petaluma, Calif.: Smart Publications; 2000.

3. Barrett B, Kiefer D, Rabago D. Assessing the risks and benefits of herbal medicine: an overview of scientific evidence. Altern Ther Health Med 1999;5(4):40-9.

4. Cohan RP, Jacobsen PL. Herbal supplements: considerations in dental practice. J Calif Dent Assoc 2000;28(8):600-10.

5. PDR for herbal medicines. 2nd ed. Montvale, N.J.: Medical Economics; 2000:iv, 10, 109, 190, 191, 302, 303, 645, 646.

6. Extent and usage of complementary and alternative medicine. In: Rees AM. The complementary and alternative medicine information source book. Phoenix: Oryx Press; 2001:3.

7. Mullally BH, James JA, Coulter WA, Linden GJ. The efficacy of herbal-based toothpaste on the control of plaque and gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22(9):686-9.

8. Wu-Yuan CD, Green L, Birch WX. In vitro screening of Chinese medicinal toothpastes: their effects on growth and plaque formation of mutans streptococci. Caries Res 1990;24:198-202.

9. Kaim JM, Gultz J, Do L, Scherer W. An in vitro investigation of the antimicrobial activity of an herbal mouthrinse. J Clin Dent 1998;9:46-8.

10. Estafan D, Gultz J, Kaim JM, Khaghany K, Scherer W. Clinical efficacy of an herbal toothpaste. J Clin Dent 1998;9:31-3.

11. Lee S, Zhang W, Schroetlin R, Li J, Yang H, Li Y. In vitro evaluation of antimicrobial potential of ten herb-based dentifrices. J Dent Res 2002;81(special issue A):A-356.

12. Volpe AR, Kupczak LJ, Brant JH, King WJ, Kestenbaum RC, Schlissel HJ. Antimicrobial control of bacterial plaque and calculus and the effects of these agents on oral flora. J Dent Res 1969;48(5):832-41.

13. Briner WW, Kayrouz GA, Chanak MX. Comparative antimicrobial effectiveness of a substantive (0.12% chlorhexidine) and a nonsubstantive (phenolic) mouthrinse in vivo and in vitro. Compendium 1994;15(9):1158-70.

14. Preston AJ. A review of dentifrices. Dent Update 1998;25(6):247-53.

15. Thibault C. Update on toothpastes. Probe 2001;35(1):25-8.

16. Moran J, Addy M, Newcombe R. Comparison of an herbal toothpaste with a fluoride toothpaste on plaque and gingivitis. Clin Prev Dent 1991;13(3):12-5.

17. Sheen S, Pontefract H, Moran J. The benefits of toothpaste: real or imagined? The effectiveness of toothpaste in the control of plaque, gingivitis, periodontitis, calculus and oral malodour. Dent Update 2001;28(3):144-7.

18. NCCLS (National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards): Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests of bacteria that grow aerobically. In Approved Standard M100-S12. Wayne. PA, NCCLS; 2002. OpenURL

Received on 27.03.2012

Modified on 06.04.2012

Accepted on 12.08.2012

Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Technology. 5(1): January- February, 2013, 23-27