Murat Özdal, Yeşim Dağlıoğlu, Mustafa Cihan Yavuz

SİRKELERİN IN VITRO ORTAMDA AGREGATIBACTER ACTINOMYCETEMCOMITANS VE PREVOTELLA INTERMEDIA ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, elma ve üzüm sirkelerinin, iki periodontal patojen olan Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans ve Prevotella intermedia'ya karşı antibakteriyel etkilerini değerlendirmektir. Yöntem: Elma ve üzüm sirkelerinin anaerobik oral patojenler üzerindeki antibakteriyel aktivitesi agar disk difüzyon yöntemi ile belirlendi. Pozitif kontrol olarak CHX glukonat kullanıldı. Bakteri dikimleri sirke ve CHX glukonat için aynı mikroorganizmalarda üç kez tekrarlandı. Ortalama sonuçlar arasındaki farklar varyans analizi (ANOVA) ile belirlenmiş ve ortalama değerler Tukey testi ile karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: P. intermedia'da hem elma (2 cm) hem de üzüm sirkesi (1,9 cm), CHX glukonattan (1,6 cm) daha yüksek antibakteriyel aktivite gösterdi. A.actinomycetemcomitans'ta, %2 CHX glukonat daha yüksek antibakteriyel aktivite gösterdi, ancak antibakteriyel aktivitesi %1 CHX glukonata kıyasla azaldı. Sonuç: Elma ve üzüm sirkeleri, A. actinomycetemcomitans ve P. intermedia'ya antibakteriyel etki için klorheksidine alternatif olarak kullanılabilir.

EFFECT OF VINEGARS ON AGGREGATIBACTER ACTINOMYCETEMCOMITANS AND PREVOTELLA INTERMEDIA IN VITRO

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the antibacterial effects of apple and grape vinegars against two of the periodontal pathogens that isAggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Prevotella intermedia.Methods: The antibacterial activity of apple and grape vinegars on anaerobic oral pathogens was determined by agar disc diffusion method. CHXgluconate was used as a positive control. Bacterial plantings were repeated three times in the same microorganisms for vinegar and CHX gluconate.The differences between the average results were determined by variance analysis (ANOVA) and the mean values were compared with the Tukeytest.Results: In the P. intermedia both apples (2 cm) and grape vinegar (1.9 cm) showed higher antibacterial activity than CHX gluconate (1.6 cm). In A.actinomycetemcomitans, 2% CHX gluconate showed higher antibacterial activity, but its antibacterial activity was reduced compared to of 1% CHXgluconate.Conclusion: Apple and grape vinegars can be used as an alternative to chlorhexidine for antibacterial effect to A. actinomycetemcomitans and P.intermedia.

PDF

___

1. Löe H, Theilade E, Jensen SB. Experimental gingivitis in man. J Periodontol. 1965;36:177-187.
2. Löe H, Rindom SC. The effect of mouthrinses and topical application of chlorhexidine on the development of dental plaque and gingivitis in man. J Periodont Res. 1970;5:79-83.
3. Takenaka S, Ohsumi T, Noiri Y. Evidence-based strategy for dental biofilms: Current evidence of mouthwashes on dental biofilm and gingivitis. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2019:33-40.
4. Van LM, Slot D, Van der WG. Essential oils compared to chlorhexidine with respect to plaque and parameters of gingival inflammation: a systematic review. J Periodontol. 2011;82:174-194.
5. Baydaş B, Kavrut F. Ortodontik tedavi gören bireylerde farkli gargaralarin ağız sağlığına etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg. 2005;1:12-21.
6. Budak NH, Aykin E, Seydim AC, Greene AK, Guzel‐Seydim ZB. Functional properties of vinegar. J Food Sci. 2014;79:R757-R764.
7. Mohanty S, Ramesh S, Muralidharan N. Antimicrobial efficacy of apple cider vinegar against Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans: An in vitro study. J Adv Pharm Educ Res. 2017;7.
8. Yagnik D, Serafin V, Shah AJ. Antimicrobial activity of apple cider vinegar against Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans; downregulating cytokine and microbial protein expression. Scientific reports. 2018;8:1732.
9. Liu JX, Werner J, Kirsch T, Zuckerman JD, Virk MS. Cytotoxicity evaluation of chlorhexidine gluconate on human fibroblasts, myoblasts, and osteoblasts. J Bone Joint Surg. 2018;3:165.
10. Karkehabadi H, Yousefifakhr H, Zadsirjan S. Cytotoxicity of Endodontic Irrigants on Human Periodontal Ligament Cells. Iran Endod. J. 2018;13:390.
11. Caudry SD, Klitorinos A, Chan EC. Contaminated toothbrushes and their disinfection. J Can Dent Assoc. 1995;61:511-516.
12. Mehta A, Sequeira PS, Bhat G. Bacterial contamination and decontamination of toothbrushes after use. N Y State Dent J. 2007;73:20-22.
13. Gujjari SK, Gujjari AK, Patel PV, Subhasini PV. Comparative evaluation of ultraviolet and microwave sanitization techniques for toothbrush decontamination. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2011;1:20-26.
14. Kılınç B, Yavuz AB. Üzüm ve elma sirkelerinin buzdolabında depolanmış alabalık filetolarının mikrobiyolojik ve duyusal kalitesi üzerine etkileri. Biy Bil Araş Dergisi. 20114;1:21-29.
15. Raj VB, Madan Kumar PD, Balaji S. Effectiveness of Vinegar, Lime, and Salt Water as Potential Household Decontaminants for Toothbrushes. J Indian Assoc Public Health Dent. 2017;15:8-10.
16. Kiesow A, Sarembe S, Pizzey RL, Axe AS, Bradshaw DJ. Material compatibility and antimicrobial activity of consumer products commonly used to clean dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115,2:189-198
17. Tijare M, Smitha D, Kasetty S, Kallianpur S, Gupta S, Amith HV. Vinegar as a disinfectant of extracted human teeth for dental educational use. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2014;18:1- 14.
18. Cemeroğlu B, Yemenicioğlu A, Özkan M. Meyve ve sebzelerin bileşimi. Meyve ve sebze işleme teknolojisi, 2004;1:1-188.