Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 587
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 546-549
An in-vivo comparative evaluation of two herbal extracts Emblica officinalis and Terminalia Chebula with chlorhexidine as an anticaries agent: A preliminary study


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontia, Rajah Muthiah Dental College and Hospital, Annamalai University, Chidambaram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontia, SRM Dental College, SRM University, Ramapuram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission20-Apr-2013
Date of Decision19-Jul-2013
Date of Acceptance24-Aug-2013
Date of Web Publication2-Nov-2013
 

   Abstract 

Aim: To compare the effect of 20% aqueous extract of Terminalia chebula and Emblica officinallis with chlorhexidine as an anticaries mouthwash - an in vivo study.
Methodology: 20% aqueous extract of Terminalia chebula and Emblica officinalis were prepared. Forty five high caries risk patients were divided into group 1,2,3 [ n=15]and asked to rinse with 20% aqueous extract of Terminalia chebula and Emblica officinalis, 0.2% Chlorhexidine for 40 seconds respectively. Salivary samples were collected for pH, buffering capacity before and after rinsing at repeated intervals of 10, 30,60 and 90 minutes and except for microbial analysis for which it was collected before and 90 minutes after rinsing. The pH and the buffering capacity analysis was done using chairside kit and percentage of reduction of Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus were tabulated and statistically analyzed.
Results: For salivary pH, Group 2 showed the highest peak value followed by group 1. For salivary buffering capacity,there was no significant difference between any of the groups. For microbial count, highest percentage of reduction was seen in group 2 followed by group 1 and 3. However group 3 was more efficient at 90 minutes followed by group 1 and group 2.
Conclusion: The aqueous extract of Embilica officinalis extract and Terminalia chebula was more effective anticaries mouthwash but with less time of action than chlorhexidine.

Keywords: Anticaries mouthwash; chlorhexidine; Emblica officinalis; Terminalia chebula

How to cite this article:
Velmurugan A, Madhubala MM, Bhavani S, Satheesh Kumar KS, Sathyanarayana SS, Gurucharan N. An in-vivo comparative evaluation of two herbal extracts Emblica officinalis and Terminalia Chebula with chlorhexidine as an anticaries agent: A preliminary study. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:546-9

How to cite this URL:
Velmurugan A, Madhubala MM, Bhavani S, Satheesh Kumar KS, Sathyanarayana SS, Gurucharan N. An in-vivo comparative evaluation of two herbal extracts Emblica officinalis and Terminalia Chebula with chlorhexidine as an anticaries agent: A preliminary study. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2013 [cited 2019 Jul 19];16:546-9. Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2013/16/6/546/120958

   Introduction Top


The management of dental caries is aimed to limit tooth demineralization by modifying the dietary habits, inhibiting or modifying oral microbial growth, altering the salivary pH and buffering capacity. The main etiological agents of dental caries are Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus species. [1] They can easily colonize the tooth surface and initiate acid production by synthesizing extracellular polysaccharides from sucrose foods. [2] Hence, a caries prevention program primarily should be aimed at reducing the cariogenic bacteria.

A mouth rinse is a chemotherapeutic agent used as an effective home care remedy to enhance oral hygiene and prevent dental caries by targeting the cariogenic bacteria. A variety of synthetic antimicrobial mouthwashes are available to prevent dental caries. It was shown to inhibit plaque formation, also reduce gingival inflammation and prevent dental caries. [3] Chlorhexidine, the most common mouth rinse has been shown to effectively reduce the level of oral S. mutans. [4] However, studies for the anticariogenic activity of chlorhexidine as a mouth rinse had reported large variations, inconsistencies and an inability to ablate S. mutans in the oral cavity. [5],[6]

The usage of antimicrobial herbal products in dentistry has been well documented in prevention of dental caries. [7],[8],[9] In spite of various commercially available anticaries agents, the search for an effective herbal antimicrobial mouth wash still continues. Hence in this study, we compared the aqueous extracts of two medicinal plants Emblica officinalis and Terminalia chebula as a mouthwash, on their efficacy against dental caries.

E. officinalis is commonly called by several names such as amalaka, oval, amla, amlaki and Indian gooseberry. It consists of the following constituents such as phenols, tannins, polyphenols, flavonoids, kaempferol, ellagic acid and gallic acid. [10] They have the potential to prevent dental caries by inhibiting the virulence factors of S. mutans and Lactobacillus. [11]

T. chebula is a medicinal plant known as Kadukka in Tamil. The chief constituents are hydrolysable tannins (13%) such as gallic acid, chebulic acid, chebulagic acid and corilagin. [12] These acids are found to have antibacterial activity against cariogenic bacteria. [13] In our previous study, we proved that T. chebula as an effective anticaries mouthwash. [9]

Only few studies [9],[14] on clinical trials of herbal mouth washes are available. Clinical trials with herbal extracts can be a potential source for the development of a phytomedicine to act against dental caries. There are no clinical trials on comparison between the anticariogenic potential of two herbal extracts of T. chebula and E. officinalis. Hence, we aimed to evaluate and compare the effect of 20% aqueous extract of T. chebula and E. officinalis and 0.2% chlorhexidine when used as an anticaries mouthwash. The objective of the study was to check the change in the salivary pH, buffering capacity and reduction in microbial count of the saliva before and after rinsing with the 20% aqueous extract of T. chebula and E. officinalis and 0.2% chlorhexidine as a mouthwash in high caries risk individuals.


   Materials and Methods Top


Preparation of the T. Chebula extract

The dried ripe fruit of T. chebula was obtained and ground into a fine powder. It was suspended in 10 times its quantity of sterile distilled water in a round bottomed flask and kept at 4°C for 72 h. Then, the aqueous extract was decanted, clarified by filtration through a muslin cloth and evaporated in a flat bottomed porcelain dish at 40°C. The dried extract (100 g) was again suspended in polyethylene glycol and distilled water (400 ml) and evaporated to get the final concentrate. This concentrate was then diluted with sterile distilled water to get a mouth rinse of 20% (w/v) concentration.

Preparation of the E. officinalis extract

The leaves of E. officinalis were obtained and ground into a fine powder and the same above mentioned method of preparation was followed.

Sample selection

A total of 45 patients who satisfied the selection criteria of high caries risk group were included in the study. All patients subjected for the study were informed about study protocols and written consent was obtained. They were randomly divided into three groups each containing 15 patients (n = 15); Group 1-20% aqueous extract of T. chebula mouth wash; Group 2-20% aqueous extract of E. officinalis mouth wash; Group 3-0.2% chlorhexidine mouth wash.

Patients were asked to wash and retain the respective mouth rinse in the mouth for 40 Secs before expectorating it. Patients were not allowed to consume any diet or drink orally for following 90 mins. A salivary sample from each patient was collected for pH, buffering capacity before (pre-rinse) and after rinsing (post-rinse) at repeated intervals of 10, 30, 60 and 90 mins however for microbial analysis, saliva was collected only after 90 mins. The mouth rinsing procedure and collection of salivary samples were handled by one investigator and analysis of the salivary parameters was carried out by different investigator who was not aware of the experimental groups to blind the study.

Salivary pH and buffering capacity analysis

Salivary pH analysis was performed using chair side kit (M-S Saliva Check Buffer Kit (GC America Inc.)). Unstimulated saliva was collected and the pH test paper was dipped in the sample for 10 Secs and the color changes were compared with the chart provided by the manufacturer and the values were recorded.

Salivary buffering capacity was performed using the same chair side kit. Stimulated saliva was collected after instructing the patient to chew paraffin wax for 30 Secs and one drop of saliva was placed onto each test pads using the pipette provided by the manufacturer. After 2 mins, the color of the strip was compared with the chart provided by the manufacturer and the values were recorded.

Microbial analysis

Pre-rinse and post-rinse salivary samples after 90 mins were collected in the same manner as was carried out for the salivary buffering capacity analysis. The culture medium used for S. mutans was Mitis Salivarius agar and for Lactobacilli was Lactobacilli agar. The technique used for assessing microbial analysis was the Dilution and Spread plate technique. The saliva samples were diluted and streaked on petri plates followed by incubation for 72 hrs at 35°C. After incubation, the colony forming units were recorded and mean percentage of reduction (PR) was calculated.

Statistical analysis

The results were tabulated and statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey HSD post-hoc test (GraphPad Software, 2003 INSTAT INC, VERSION 3.06).


   Results Top


pH analysis

[Table 1] shows the results of pH analysis. All the groups showed a significant difference between the pre-rinse and post-rinse group. On comparing the groups at various time intervals
Table 1: Change in salivary pH

Click here to view


  • At 10, 30 and 60 mins, there was no significant difference among groups (P > 0.05).
  • At 90 mins, there was high significant difference between Group 1 and 3 (P < 0.01) with Group 3 showing higher values of 6.88.
  • In Group 3, there was a gradual increase in pH till 90 mins with a significant difference between 10 mins and 90 mins whereas in other groups there is no significant difference at various time intervals.
Buffering capacity analysis

[Table 2] shows the results of buffering capacity analysis. All the groups showed a significant difference between the pre-rinse and post-rinse group. On comparing the groups at various time intervals,
Table 2: Change in salivary buffering capacity

Click here to view


  • At 10 mins, there was no significant difference among groups
  • At 30, 60, 90 mins, there was no significant difference between Groups 2 and 3.
  • At 30, 60, 90 mins, Group 1 showed significantly less rise in pH when compared to other groups.
  • Group 3 exhibited highest buffering capacity with no significant difference at all time intervals.
  • Groups 1 and 2 showed a gradual decrease in the buffering capacity over increase in time.
Microbial analysis

[Table 3] shows the mean PR of S. mutans and Lactobacillus. There was a significant PR between the pre-rinse and post-rinse samples. E. officinalis showed highly significant antibacterial activity compared with chlorhexidine and T. chebula against S. mutans. E. officinalis (76.6%) and T. chebula (71.7%) showed antibacterial activity against Lactobacillus with no significant difference. Chlorhexidine showed least PR (65%, 64%) against both the species when compared with the other two herbal extracts.
Table 3: Microbial analysis percentage of reduction

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The changes in the salivary pH, buffering action and microbial activity before and after use of experimental mouthwashes were assessed because three quantitative actions play a major role in the caries disease process. The time intervals of 10, 30, 60 and 90 mins were selected for convenience and to evaluate the effect of mouthwash over a period of time. [15]

Chlorhexidine gluconate, which is charged positively, shows high affinity for negative ions found in cell membranes of microorganisms. It indirectly affects the enzymatic function of dehydrogenase and adenosine triphosphatase present in the cell wall of bacteria resulting in the disruption of cell membrane. [16] It is evident in this study that the chlorhexidine showed a definite reduction in the microbial activity and an increase in the pH and buffering capacity resulting in marked anticariogenic effect. However, there is a lack of convincing clinical data and long-term clinical evidence for caries prevention with chlorhexidine. [5] Moreover, chlorhexidine have reports of causing discoloration effects [17] and an unpleasant taste. [18]

The evidence of efficacy of synthetic antimicrobial agents as mouthwashes remains obscure for higher caries risk group people. [19] Hence, two medicinal plants of known and higher inhibitory action against common cariogenic pathogens were selected for this study to compare its efficacy with chlorhexidine. In this study, T. chebula and E. officinalis proved to be an effective anticaries mouthwash owing to its ability to increase salivary pH, buffering capacity and to inhibit S. mutans and Lactobacilli. The microbial reduction in Groups 1 and 2 may be attributed to the presence of tannins and flavonoid.

The action of tannin may induce cytotoxic action on the cell membranes of the microorganisms. The astringent characters of tannin may induce complexation with enzymes or substrates. Inhibition of the electron transport system was observed following treatment with tannic acid. The complexation of metal ions by tannins could be the other possible mechanism responsible for tannin toxicity. [20]

Flavonoids, group of phenols, proved to be anticariogenic by the presence of anti-glucosyltransferases activity. [21] The binding of active components of E. officinalis extract to the proteins associated with the bacterial cell surface leads to reduction in hydrophobic adherence of S. mutans to the tooth surface. [22] The suppression of virulence gene, which is responsible for plaque cohesion leading to dental caries, attenuates quorum sensing mechanism resulting in despaired virulence expressions. [11]

Both the plant extracts showed a gradual decrease in pH until 90 mins while chlorhexidine showed a gradual increase in pH among other groups owing to its substantivity. Although the herbal extracts were more rapid and effective at 10 mins, there was a gradual fall in pH as time increases. Buffering capacity results showed no significant difference among three groups at 10 mins. At 30, 60 and 90 mins, E. officinalis and chlorhexidine showed an equal buffering capacity followed by T. chebula. Chlorhexidine showed same buffering activity at all-time intervals owing to its substantivity whereas T. chebula and E. officinalis showed a gradual decrease in buffering capacity over time. Thus a gel or varnish based application of T. chebula and E. officinalis would have more beneficial effect as salivary buffering agent.

The antimicrobial efficiency was highest for E. officinalis followed by T. chebula and chlorhexidine. The aqueous extract of T. chebula strongly inhibits the growth, sucrose induced adherence and glucan induced aggregation of S. mutans. [15],[23] The 0.6% Triphala (T. chebula and E. officinalis combination) and 0.1% Chlorhexidine had been shown to have an inhibitory effect on plaque, gingivitis and growth of S. mutans and Lactobacillus. [14],[24] This is in accordance with our study, which showed 67.8 and 71.7% reduction of S. mutans and Lactobacillus respectively, at the same time, chlorhexidine was less effective against Lactobacilli than E. officinalis and T. chebula. Thus, herbal extract can be suggested for management of dentinal caries as their action on Lactobacillus is more than chlorhexidine.


   Conclusion Top


The aqueous extract of E. officinalis and T. chebula was more effective as a mouth rinse, but with less time of action than chlorhexidine. The future studies have to be aimed at increasing the substantivity of herbal mouthwashes so that they could be a potential alternative to 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash alone with intense antimicrobial and cost-effective preventive strategies for dental caries.

 
   References Top

1.Hahn CL, Falkler WA Jr., Minah GE. Microbiological studies of carious dentine from human teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Arch Oral Biol 1991;36:147-53.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Pathak A, Aparna S, Kadam V, Rekadwad B, Karuppayil SM. Efficacy of some medicinal plants against human dental pathogens. Indian J Nat Prod Resour 2012;31:123-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Fardal O, Turnbull RS. A review of the literature on use of chlorhexidine in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1986;112:863-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Kocak MM, Ozcan S, Kocak S, Topuz O, Erten H. Comparison of the efficacy of three different mouthrinse solutions in decreasing the level of streptococcus mutans in saliva. Eur J Dent 2009;3:57-61.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Autio-Gold J. The role of chlorhexidine in caries prevention. Oper Dent 2008;33:710-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Twetman S. Antimicrobials in future caries control? A review with special reference to chlorhexidine treatment. Caries Res 2004;38:223-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Lee SS, Zhang W, Li Y. The antimicrobial potential of 14 natural herbal dentifrices: Results of an in vitro diffusion method study. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135:1133-41.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Badria FA, Zidan OA. Natural products for dental caries prevention. J Med Food 2004;7:381-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Carounanidy U, Satyanarayanan R, Velmurugan A. Use of an aqueous extract of Terminalia chebula as an anticaries agent: A clinical study. Indian J Dent Res 2007;18:152-6.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
10.Nair R, Chanda SV. Activity of some medicinal plants against certain bacterial strains. Indian J Pharmacol 2006;38:142-4.  Back to cited text no. 10
  Medknow Journal  
11.Hasan S, Danishuddin M, Adil M, Singh K, Verma PK, Khan AU. Efficacy of E. officinalis on the cariogenic properties of Streptococcus mutans: A novel and alternative approach to suppress quorum-sensing mechanism. PLoS One 2012;7:e40319.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Han Q, Song J, Qiao C, Wong L, Xu H. Preparative isolation of hydrolysable tannins chebulagic acid and chebulinic acid from Terminalia chebula by high-speed counter-current chromatography. J Sep Sci 2006;29:1653-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Aneja KR, Joshi R. Evaluation of antimicrobial properties of fruit extracts of Terminalia chebula against dental caries pathogens. Jundishapur J Microbiol 2009;2:105-11.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Srinagesh J, Pushpanjali K. Assessment of antibacterial efficacy of Triphala against Mutans streptococci: A randomised control trial. Oral Health Prev Dent 2011;9:387-93.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Jagtap AG, Karkera SG. Potential of the aqueous extract of Terminalia chebula as an anticaries agent. J Ethnopharmacol 1999;68:299-306.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.McBain AJ, Bartolo RG, Catrenich CE, Charbonneau D, Ledder RG, Gilbert P. Effects of a chlorhexidine gluconate-containing mouthwash on the vitality and antimicrobial susceptibility of in vitro oral bacterial ecosystems. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003;69:4770-6.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Bagis B, Baltacioglu E, Özcan M, Ustaomer S. Evaluation of chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse-induced staining using a digital colorimeter: An in vivo study. Quintessence Int 2011;42:213-23.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Helms JA, Della-Fera MA, Mott AE, Frank ME. Effects of chlorhexidine on human taste perception. Arch Oral Biol 1995;40:913-20.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Bretz WA, Rosa OP. Emerging technologies for the prevention of dental caries. Are current methods of prevention sufficient for the high risk patient? Int Dent J 2011;61 Suppl 1:29-33.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Chung KT, Wong TY, Wei CI, Huang YW, Lin Y. Tannins and human health: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 1998;38:421-64.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Iio M, Uyeda M, Iwanani T, Nakagawa Y. Flavanoids as a possible preventive agent of dental caries. Agric Biol Chem 1984;48:2143-5.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Cushnie TP, Lamb AJ. Antimicrobial activity of flavonoids. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005;26:343-56.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Nayak SS, Kumar BR, Ankola AV, Hebbal M. The efficacy of Terminalia chebula rinse on Streptococcus mutans count in saliva and its effect on salivary pH. Oral Health Prev Dent 2010;8:55-8.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Bajaj N, Tandon S. The effect of Triphala and Chlorhexidine mouthwash on dental plaque, gingival inflammation, and microbial growth. Int J Ayurveda Res 2011;2:29-36.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  

Top
Correspondence Address:
Arumugam Velmurugan
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontia, Rajah Muthiah Dental College, Annamalai University, Chidambaram,Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.120958

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1892    
    Printed37    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded331    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal