Tuncer ÖZEN, Abdullah KILIÇ, ORHAN BEDİR, ÖZGÜR KORU, Kadriye SORKUN, Mehmet TANYÜKSEL, Selim KILIÇ, Ömür GENÇAY, OĞUZHAN YILDIZ, MEHMET BAYSALLAR

In vitro activity of Turkish propolis samples against anaerobic bacteria causing oral cavity infections

Bu çalışmanın amacı, özellikle oral kavite enfeksiyonlarına neden olan anaerobik mikroorganizmalara karşı Türkiye’nin çeşitli bölgelerinden toplanan propolis örneklerinin antimikrobiyal aktivitesini değerlendirmektir. Bu çalışmada toplam onbir anaerobik mikroorganizma test edildi. İzolatların minimal inhibitör konsantrasyonlarını (MİK) tespit etmek için agar dilüsyon yöntemi, minimal bakterisidal konsantrasyonlarını (MBK) tespit etmek için makro tüp dilüsyon yöntemi kullanıldı. Türk propolis örnekleri istatistiksel fark olmaksızın etanol kontrolü ile karşılaştırıldığında tüm test edilen anaerobik mikroorganizmalara karşı etkili bulundu. Propolis örneklerinin MİK ve MBK’ları sırasıyla 0.4-0.6 mg/ml ile 108.1-186.2 mg/ml değerleri arasındaydı. Tüm test edilen propolis örneklerine karşı Prevotella intermedia en az duyarlı izolat iken iken, Actinomyces odontolyticus en fazla duyarlı izolat idi. Bartin (BA) propolis örneği tüm test edilen anaerobik mikroorganizmalara karşı en az etkili iken, İlic/Erzincan (ER-I) propolis örneği en fazla etkili idi. Propolis örneklerine MİK oranları 0.4-6.1 mg/ml ile Gram-pozitif anaerobik bakteriler, MİK oranları 5.8-108.1 mg/ml ile Gram-negatif bakteriler ile karşılaştırıldığında daha duyarlı oldukları tespit edildi (P

Anahtar Kelimeler:

anaeroblar, antimikrobiyal özellikler, etanol, ağız, ağız hastalıkları, direnç mekanizmaları, soy, Actinomyces odontolyticus

Oral kavite enfeksiyonlarına neden olan anaerobik bakterilere karşı Türk propolis örneklerinin In vitro antimikrobiyal aktivitesi

The aim of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of propolis samples collected from different regions of Turkey against anaerobic bacteria causing especially oral cavity infections. A total of eleven anaerobic bacterial strains have been tested in this study. The strains were tested by agar dilution method for detecting minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and by macro dilution broth method for detecting minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC). Turkish propolis samples were found highly effective against all tested anaerobic bacteria compared with ethanol control, without statistical differences. The MIC and MBC of propolis samples ranged from 0.40.6 mg/ml to 108.1-186.2 mg/ml, respectively. Actinomyces odontolyticus was the most susceptible strains; whereas Prevotella intermedia was was the least susceptible strain to all tested propolis samples. Ilic/Erzincan (ER-I) propolis sample was the more effective against all tested anaerobic bacteria; whereas Bartin (BA) propolis sample was the less effective. Gram-positive anaerobic bacteria were detected to be the most sensitive to propolis samples; with the MIC values ranging from 0.4 to 6.1 mg/ml compared with Gram-negative anaerobic bacteria with MIC ranging from 5.8 to 108.1 mg/ml (P<0.05). As a result of, Turkish propolis samples had antibacterial activity against anaerobic bacteria especially causing oral cavity infections. Because of the high rate of resistance of the anaerobic bacteria isolated from oral cavity infections, standardized preparations of propolis are suggested to use in treatment of this kind of infections. However, further studies are needed to be performed on the clinical applications of propolis in oral cavity infections.

Keywords:

anaerobes, antimicrobial properties, ethanol, mouth, mouth diseases, resistance mechanisms, strains, Actinomyces odontolyticus,

PDF

___

1. Fernandes Júnior A, Balestrin EC, Betoni JE, Orsi Rde O, da Cunha Mde L, Montelli AC: Propolis: Anti-Staphylococcus aureus activity and synergism with antimicrobial drugs. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, 100 (5): 563-566, 2005.
2. Orsi RO, Sforcin JM, Funari SR, Bankova V: Effects of Brazilian and Bulgarian propolis on bactericidal activity of macrophages against Salmonella typhimurium. Int Immunopharmacol, 5 (2): 359-368, 2005.
3. Khayyal MT, el-Ghazaly MA, el-Khatib AS: Mechanisms involved in the antiinflammatory effect of propolis extract. Drugs Exp Clin Res, 19 (5): 197-203, 1993.
4. Russo A, Cardile V, Sanchez F, Troncoso N, Vanella A, Garbarino JA: Chilean propolis: Antioxidant activity and antiproliferative action in human tumor cell lines. Life Sci, 76 (5): 545-558, 2004.
5. Kartal M, Yildiz S, Kaya S, Kurucu S, Topçu G: Antimicrobial activity of propolis samples from two different regions of Anatolia. J Ethnopharmacol, 86 (1): 69-73, 2003.
6. Silici S, Kutluca S: Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of propolis collected by three different races of honeybees in the same region. J Ethnopharmacol, 99 (1): 69-73, 2005.
7. Banskota AH, Tezuka Y, Adnyana IK, Ishii E, Midorikawa K, Matsushige K, Kadota S: Hepatoprotective and anti-Helicobacter pylori activities of constituents from Brazilian propolis. Phytomedicine, 8 (1): 16-23, 2001.
8. Kujumgiev A, Tsvetkova I, Serkedjieva Y, Bankova V, Christov R, Popov S: Antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral activity of propolis of different geographic origin. J Ethnopharmacol, 64 (3): 235-240, 1999.
9. Baysallar M, Kilic A, Aydogan H, Cilli F, Doganci L: Linezolid and quinupristin/dalfopristin resistance in vancomycin-resistant enterococci and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus prior to clinical use in Turkey. Int J Antimicrob Agents, 23 (5): 510512, 2004.
10. Könönen E: Oral colonization by anaerobic bacteria during childhood: Role in health and disease. Oral Dis, 5 (4): 278-285, 1999.
11. Kobayashi N, Ishihara K, Sugihara N, Kusumoto M, Yakushiji M, Okuda K: Colonization pattern of periodontal bacteria in Japanese children and their mothers. J Periodontal Res, 43 (2): 156-161, 2008.
12. Boyanova L, Kolarov R, Gergova G, Mitov I: In vitro activity of Bulgarian propolis against 94 clinical isolates of anaerobic bacteria. Anaerobe, 12 (4): 173-177, 2006.
13. Bidault P, Chandad F, Grenier D: Risk of bacterial resistance associated with systemic antibiotic therapy in periodontology. J Can Dent Assoc, 73 (8): 721-725, 2007.
14. Ferreira FB, Torres SA, Rosa OP, Ferreira CM, Garcia RB, Marcucci MC, Gomes BP: Antimicrobial effect of propolis and other substances against selected endodontic pathogens. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 104 (5): 709-716, 2007.
15. Kilic A, Baysallar M, Besirbellioglu B, Salih B, Sorkun K, Tanyuksel M: In vitro antimicrobial activity of propolis against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycinresistant Enterococcus faecium. Ann Microbiol, 55 (2): 113-117, 2005.
16. Katircioglu H, Mecan N: Antimicrobial activity and chemical compositions of Turkish propolis from different regions. Afr J Biotechnol, 5 (11): 1151-1153, 2006.
17. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards: Methods for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Anaerobic Bacteria. 4th ed. Approved Standard M11-A4, 1997.
18. Zar JH: Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd ed., New Jersey, pp. 147156, 1996.
19. Ergün G, Aktaş S: ANOVA modellerinde kareler toplamı yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 15 (3): 481-484, 2009.
20. Slots J: Selection of antimicrobial agents in periodontal therapy. J Periodontal Res, 37(5):389-398, 2002.
21. Sonmez S, Kirilmaz L, Yucesoy M, Yücel B, Yilmaz B: The effect of bee propolis on oral pathogens and human gingival fibroblasts. J Ethnopharmacol, 102 (3): 371-376, 2005.
22. Drago L, De Vecchi E, Nicola L, Gismondo MR: In vitro antimicrobial activity of a novel propolis formulation (Actichelated propolis). J Appl Microbiol. 103 (5): 1914-1921. 2007.
23. Ghisalberti EL: Propolis: A review. Bee World, 60, 59-84, 1979.
24. Cheng PC, Wong G: Honey bee propolis: Prospects in medicine. Bee World, 77, 8-15, 1996.
25. Haffajee AD, Socransky SS: Microbial etiological agents of destructive periodontal diseases. Periodontology 2000, 5, 78111, 1994.
26. Santos FA, Bastos EM, Uzeda M, Carvalho MA, Farias LM, Moreira ES, Braga FC: Antibacterial activity of Brazilian propolis and fractions against oral anaerobic bacteria. J Ethnopharmacol, 80, 1-7, 2002.
27. Koru O, Toksoy F, Acikel CH, Tunca YM, Baysallar M, Uskudar Guclu A, Akca E, Ozkok Tuylu A, Sorkun K, Tanyuksel M, Salih B: In vitro antimicrobial activity of propolis samples from different geographical origins against certain oral pathogens. Anaerobe, 13 (3-4): 140-145, 2007.
28. Feres M, Figueiredo LC, Barreto IM, Coelho MH, Araujo MW, Cortelli SC: In vitro antimicrobial activity of plant extracts and propolis in saliva samples of healthy and periodontallyinvolved subjects. J Int Acad Periodontol, 7 (3): 90-96, 2005.
29. Cihangir N, Sorkun K, Salih B: Chemical composition and antibacterial activities of propolis collected from different regions of Turkey. Hacettepe J Biol Chem, 34, 59-67, 2005.
30. Popova M, Silici S, Kaftanoğlu O, Bankova V: Antibacterial activity of Turkish propolis and its qualitative and quantitative chemical composition. Phytomedicine, 12(3): 221-228, 2005.
31. Grange JM, Davey RW: Antibacterial properties of propolis (bee glue). J R Soc Med, 83 (3): 159-160, 1990.