Citation Information :
Guru A, Bhola M. Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Propolis and Chlorhexidine Mouthwashes on Streptococcus mutans Counts in Saliva: An In Vivo Study. Curr Trends Diagn Treat 2019; 3 (1):13-17.
Background: The role of Streptococcus mutans as the causative agent of dental caries is well demonstrated and documented. Besides chlorhexidine being the widely used synthetic medicament, a natural antibiotic substance called propolis (bee glue) has attracted the attention of researchers due to its multiple pharmacological properties. This natural product is produced by honey bee and showed antibacterial activity against a range of commonly encountered Gram-positive microorganisms including Streptococcus mutans, preventing dental caries.
Aims and objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of 5% propolis and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwashes in reducing Streptococcus mutans colony counts in saliva.
Materials and methods: Prerinse and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash postrinse unstimulated salivary samples were collected from sixty subjects. The samples were then transferred to laboratory, using a transport medium, where they were cultured on trypticase soy yeast 20% sucrose bacitracin agar (TYS20B), a selective media for the growth of Streptococcus mutans. After one week, prerinse and 5% propolis mouthwash postrinse salivary samples were collected from the same subjects and were cultured in a similar manner. Each sample was serially diluted upto 1:104 dilutions with the help of automated pipettes. Streptococcus mutans colonies were identified by various tests and counted by the use of a digital colony counter.
Results: The reduction of Streptococcus mutans by both the mouthwashes was found to be statistically significant and compared. 0.2% chlorhexidine showed better results in reducing Streptococcus mutans colonies than 5% propolis, which individually showed a good efficacy against the culprit microorganism.
Conclusion: Chlorhexidine has statistically better anticariogenic efficacy in comparison to propolis against Streptococcus mutans in saliva. On the other hand, propolis itself showed a significant anticariogenic activity against the growth of Streptococcus mutans. It may be considered as an alternative natural mouthwash to enhance oral health with minimum side effects.
Lakade LS, Shah P, et al. Comparison of antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine and combination mouth rinse in reducing the Mutans streptococcus count in plaque. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014 April 17;32(2):91–96. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.130780.
Gronroos L, Matto J, et al. Chlorhexidine Susceptibilities of Mutans Streptococcal Serotypes and Ribotypes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995 April;39(4):894–898. DOI: 10.1128/AAC. 39.4.894.
Grover R, Frank M. Regional Specificity of Chlorhexidine Effects on Taste Perception. Chem Senses 2008;33(4):311–318. DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjm095.
Solis C, Santos A, et al. 0.2% Chlorhexidine Mouthwash With An Antidiscoloration System Versus 0.2% Chlorhexidine Mouthwash: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study. J Periodontol 2011 January;82(1):80–85. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100289.
Botelho MA, dos Santos RA, et al. Comparative effect of an essential oil mouthrinse on plaque, gingivitis and salivary Streptococcus mutans levels: a double blind randomized study. Phytother Res 2009;23(9):1214–1219. DOI: 10.1002/ptr.2489.
Hegde KS, Bhat SS, et al. Effect of Propolis on Streptococcus mutans Counts: An in vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013 April 26;6(1): 22–25. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1180.
Wan AKL, Seow WK, et al. Comparison of five selective media for the growth and enumeration of Streptococcus mutans. Aust Dent J 2002;47(1):21–26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2002.tb00298.x.
Burt B, Loesche W, et al. Stability of Streptococcus mutatis and Its Relationship to Caries in a Child Population over 2 Years. Caries Res 1983;17(6):532–542. DOI: 10.1159/000260714.
Zanela NLM, Bijella MFTB, et al. The influence of mouthrinses with antimicrobial solutions on the inhibition of dental plaque and on the levels of mutans streptococci in children. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2002;16(2):101–106. DOI: 10.1590/S1517-74912002000200002.
Helms JA, Della-Fera MA, et al. Effects of chlorhexidine on human taste perception. Arch Oral Biol 1995 November;40(10):913–920. DOI: 10.1016/0003-9969(95)00062-T.
Veloz J, Saavedra N, et al. Antibiofilm Activity of Chilean Propolis on Streptococcus mutans Is Influenced by the Year of Collection. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:1–6. DOI: 10.1155/2015/291351.
Malhotra N, Rao SP, et al. Comparative in vitro evaluation of efficacy of mouthrinses against Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacilli and Candida albicans. Oral Health Prev Dent 2011;9(3):261–268.
Pereira E, da Silva J, et al. Clinical Evidence of the Efficacy of a Mouthwash Containing Propolis for the Control of Plaque and Gingivitis: A Phase II Study. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2011;2011:1–7. DOI: 10.1155/2011/750249.
Jarvinen H, Tenovuo J, et al. In vitro susceptibility of Streptococcus mutans to chlorhexidine and six other antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother May 1993;37(5):1158–1159. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.37.5.1158.
Collee JG, Fraser AG, et al. Mackie & McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology, 14th ed., India: Elsevier; 2008.
Liberio SA, Pereira AL, et al. The potential use of propolis as a cariostatic agent and its actions on mutans group streptococci. J Ethnopharmacol 2009 August 17;125(1):1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2009.04.047.
Dodwad V, Kukreja BJ. Propolis mouthwash: A new beginning. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2011 August 30;15(2):121–125. DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.84379.
Parolia A, Thomas MS, et al. Propolis and its potential uses in oral health. Int J Med Med Sci 2010 July;2(7):210–215.
Ophori EA, Eriagbonye BN, et al. Antimicrobial activity of propolis against Streptococcus mutans. Afr J Biotechnol 2010 August 2;9(31):4966–4969.
Jahromi MZ, Tahmourespour A, et al. The effect of propolis on bacterial population isolated from necrotizing single canal tooth with chronic apical periodontitis versus chlorhexidine gluconate. Med Plants Res 2013 October 10;7(38):2873–2878.