مقایسه آزمایشگاهی اثر دهانشویه‏‏ های ایرانی و خارجی بر علیه کاندیدا آلبیکنس به‏ عنوان فلور قارچی شایع در دهان

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی- انگلیسی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد، گروه میکروبیولوژی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد کرج، کرج، ایران.

2 دانشیار گروه میکروبیولوژی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد کرج، کرج، ایران.

3 دانشیار گروه قارچ و انگل شناسی،دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه بقیه الله، تهران، ایران

4 استادیار گروه آموزش بهداشت،دانشکده بهداشت، دانشگاه بقیه الله، تهران، ایران

چکیده

  مقدمه: کاندیدا آلبیکنس در 65 درصد از افراد سالم بدون علایم بالینی جدا شده است. دهانشویه‏ها برای بسیاری از اهداف پیشگیرانه و درمانی استفاده می‏شوند. مطالعه حاضر با هدف بررسی تأثیر دهانشویه‏های ایرانی و خارجی بر کاندیدا آلبیکنس به عنوان فلور قارچی رایج در دهان انجام شد .   مواد و روش ‏‏ ها: در این مطالعه، ازسوش استاندارد کاندیدا آلبیکنس 10231 ATCC ‏ استفاده شد. سپس از کشت تازه کاندیدا آلبیکنس (24 ساعته)، سوسپانسیون تهیه و OD آن در 530 نانومتر خوانده شد. سوسپانسیونکاندیدا آلبیکنس در محیط سابوروددکستروزآگارکشت داده شد. سپس، دو چاهک در محیط کشت ایجاد، در داخل آن‏ها دهانشویه ریخته (100 میکرولیتر) و در دمای 37 درجه سانتی‏گراد به مدت24 ساعت انکوبه شد. سپس، هاله عدم رشد اندازه گیری شد. حداقل غلظت مهارکنندگی رشد ( MIC ) و حداقل غلظت کشندگی ( MFC ) دهانشویه‏‏ها نیز مشخص شد . داده‏ها با استفاده از نرم افزار آماری SPSS ، آزمون‏های آماری T مستقل و تحلیل واریانس یک طرفه بررسی شد .   نتایج: نتایج مربوط به روش آگار دیفیوژن، MIC و MFC ، اختلاف معناداری بین اثرات ضد قارچی دهانشویه‏های ایرانی و خارجی نشان ندادند (05/0 Pvalue > ) .   بحث و نتیجه ‏ گیری: این مطالعه نشان داد که هر دو دهانشویه ایرانی و خارجی اثر خوبی دربرابر کاندیدا آلبیکنس به عنوان فلور قارچی شایع در دهان داشتند .  

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparison between Iranian and foreign mouthwashes effect against Candida albicans as a common fungal mouth flora

نویسندگان [English]

  • Somayeh Talebi 1
  • Azar Sabokbar 2
  • Majid Riazipour 3
  • Mohsen Saffari 4
1 M.Sc. of Microbiology, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
2 Associate Professor of Microbiology, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
3 Associate Professor of Medical Mycology, Applied Microbiology Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Assistant Professor of Health Education, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Candida albicans has been isolated in up to 65% of healthy individuals without signs of clinical disease. Mouthwashes can be used for many preventative and therapeutic purposes. This study evaluates the effectiveness of Iranian and foreign mouthwashes against C.albicans as a common fungal flora in the mouth.
Materials and methods: In this research, standard strain of C.albicans, ATCC 10231 is used. The suspension is provided by a fresh culture of C.albicans (24 hours) and the OD is read in 530 nm. The C. albicans suspension was cultured on Sabouraud dextrose agar plate. In the next step, two wells created on SDA, filling with mouthwashes (100 µl). After incubation at 37ºC for 24 hours, the inhibition zone was measured. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and Minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) of mouthwashes were determined. The data are analyzed by SPSS software, independent T- tests and one sided variance analysis (ANOVA- one way).
Results: Findings of our study showed in whichagar diffusion, MIC and MFC tests, there are no significant differences between the antifungal effect of the Iranian and foreign mouthwashes on C.albicans (P value>0.05).
Discussion and conclusion: This study shows that both Iranian and foreign mouthwashes have a good effect against C.albicans, as a common fungal flora in the mouth.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Candida albicans
  • Fungal flora
  • Mouthwash

Introduction

Oral candidiasis is the most common fungal infection in human, which is produced by different types of Candida especially C.albicans. It has been known as a common opportunistic infection in immunocompromised patients and more than 90% of patients suffer from HIV infection at primary and advance stages (1- 14).

The use of chemical materials is a complementary method for controlling the population of C.albicans. Chemical materials are described in different forms such as alkaline peroxidase, acids, enzymes, toothpaste and mouthwashes (15). Mouthwashes are a kind of washing solutions, which are used to control the population of fungi in the mouth such as C.albicans. Based on their special structure used for mouth and teeth hygiene, these are washing and cleaning solutions (15, 16 and 17).

Different studies indicate that, using mouthwashes could decrease fungal and bacterial colonization in the mouth cavity, Ellepola et al., investigated the antifungal effect of Chlorhexidine gluconate 0.2% on mucous membrane inflammation caused by Candida which resulted in decreasing the colonization (2). Machado et al., investigated the effect of biofilms in different species of Candida and indicated that the colonization of Candida species have been decreased (4). Finally, Vianna et al., indicated the evaluation of antimicrobial activity of Chlorhexidine, which causes to decrease the colonization of facultative and aerobic microorganisms such as C. albicans (18). Among the mouthwashes, many of the researches have been focused on chlorhexidine against C.albicans and there is no enough information about other mouthwashes.

Nowadays in dentistry, antifungal agents are used in the local and systemic forms. Recently, resistance to antifungal therapy has been reported specially for organisms such as C.albicans. In Iran drug market, there are many Iranian and foreign mouthwashes, which their efficiencies against Candida haven’t been studied. The aim of this study is to compare the effect of Iranian and foreign mouthwashes against C.albicans.

 

Materials and methods

Preparation of C. albicans

In this study, standard strain NO. ATCC 10231 of C. albicans is used. Standard strain cultivated in Sabouraud dextrose agar (Merck, Germany) and placed at 37ºC for 24 hours until activated.

Preparation of mouthwashes

Many different types of mouthwashes are used in this study as follow. Iranian mouthwashes such as Vi- one (Rojn cosmetic lab Co, Tabriz, Iran), Fluorine (World health laboratories Co, Tehran, Iran), Hexodine (World health laboratories Co, Tehran, Iran), Matrica (Barij Essence Pharmaceutical Co, Kashan, Iran), Persica (Porsina Pharmaceutical Co, Tehran, Iran), Epimax (Emad Pharmaceutical Co, Esfahan, Iran), Chlorohexidine (ShahreDaru laboratories Co, Tehran, Iran), Fluoride (ShahreDaru laboratories Co, Tehran, Iran), anti- septic Irsha (Shafa cosmetic laboratories Co, Tehran, Iran), anti- plaque Irsha (Shafa cosmetic laboratories Co, Tehran, Iran), Benzydamine (Behvazan Co, Rasht, Iran) and foreign mouthwashes include Oral B (Grossgerau Co, Hessen, German), Sensodyne (GSK Co, London, UK), Corpore Sano (Disna.S.A Co, Barcelona, Spain), Colgate (Kucukyali Co, Estanbol, Turkey) and Foramen (Guarnizo Co, Cantabria, Spain).

Agar diffusion method

The suspension by physiological saline (Samen, Iran) and fresh culture of C.albicans was provided (24 hours), and its concentration (OD) was read at 530 nm (nanometer) wavelengths by spectrophotometer (Pars Teb Novin, Iran) in which there were 2.5×106 CFU/ml colonies in every milliliter. 10 µl of provided suspension transferred to SDA medium. In the next step, two wells were made with suitable distance in culture medium, filling with mouthwashes. To reduce the error, the test repeated 4 times. Plates located in the incubator (Behdad Medical Production, Iran) at 37ºC for 24 hours. Inhibition zone diameter measured and then recorded by using a Collis (Kiya Sanat Khavaran, Iran) (19). For each mouthwash, one control plate including mouthwash and sterilized distilled water was prepared.

Measurement of minimum inhibitory concentration

To determine the minimum inhibitory concentration for each mouthwash, dilution (from 1/2 to 1/1024) was prepared according to CLSI protocol. The lowest concentration of mouthwash that prevents turbidity (growth) of C.albicans considered being the minimum inhibitory concentration. This method was conducted based on turbidity clearance (20).

Measurement of minimum fungicidal concentration

To determine the minimum fungicidal concentration of mouthwash, 10 µl of specimens were taken from the MIC (last clear tube) and two last tubes poured in SDA, incubating at 37ºC for 24 hours. The lowest concentration of mouthwash that prevents the growth of C.albicans is determined by subculturing last clear MIC tube on SDA and refers to fungicidal activity. These procedures were conducted for more accuracy and controlling the error. Colony count less than 4 indicate non- growth and more than 4 refer to growth status (20).

Statistical analysis

The data was analyzed by SPSS software (18th edition), using independent T- test and one sided variance analysis (ANOVA- one way) with P value<0.05.

 

Results

The mean inhibition zone diameter using Iranian and foreign mouthwashes are indicated in table 1 and 2. The comparison within inhibition zone diameter caused by Iranian and foreign mouthwashes are shown in Fig. 1.

Amount of MIC determined by tube dilution test (with 10 dilution tubes). The point at which growth of C.albicans was inhibited is recognized as a minimum inhibitory concentration. Statistical analysis of the Iranian and foreign mouthwashes MIC are presented in table 3 and 4. The comparison within Iranian and foreign mouthwashes MIC are shown in Fig. 2. The results of the MFC were similar to MIC (table 5 and 6 and Fig. 3).

 

Table 1- Statistical analysis, mean diameter and standard deviation of inhibition zone exhibited by Iranian mouthwashes against C. albicans

Types of mouthwash

Mean of inhibition zone (mm)

SD (mm)

P-value in ANONA-one way test

Vi- one

19.43

0.81

 

Fluorine

18.46

1.84

 

Hexodine

16.65

0.85

 

Matrica

16.37

0.74

 

Epimax

14.37

0.79

 

Chlorhexidine

14.21

0.45

P value<0.001

Persica

10.93

0.77

 

anti- plaque Irsha

R*

R

 

anti-septic Irsha

R

R

 

Benzydamine

R

R

 

Fluoride

R

R

 

*R means C. albicans resistance tothese mouthwashes

 

Table 2- Statistical analysis, mean diameter and standard deviation of inhibition zone exhibited by foreign mouthwashes against C.albicans

Types of mouthwash

Mean of inhibition zone (mm)

SD (mm)

P-value in ANONA-one way test

Oral B

23.25

0.65

 

Sensodyne

19.87

1.32

 

Colgate

R*

R

P value<0.001

Foramen

R

R

 

Corpore Sano

R

R

 

*R means C. albicans resistance to these mouthwashes

 

Table 3- Statistical analysis of minimum inhibitory concentration exhibited by Iranian mouthwashes against C. albicans

Types of mouthwash

MIC (mg/l)

P-value in ANONA-one way test

anti-plaque Irsha

0.250

 

anti-septic Irsha

0.125

 

Benzydamine

0.125

 

Fluoride

0.062

 

Epimax

0.031

P value <0.001

Hexodine

0.019

 

Chlorhexidine

0.015

 

Fluorine

0.007

 

Vi-one

0.001

 

 

Table 4- Statistical analysis of minimum inhibitory concentration exhibited by foreign mouthwashes against C. albicans

Types of mouthwash

MIC (mg/l)

P-value in ANONA-one way test

Colgate

0.250

 

Persica

0.093

 

Matrica

0.062

 

Corpore Sano

0.062

P value<0.001

Foramen

0.062

 

Sensodyne

0.007

 

Oral B

0.003

 

 

Table 5- Statistical analysis of minimum fungicidal concentration exhibited by Iranian mouthwashes against C. albicans

Types of mouthwashes

MFC (mg/l)

P-value in ANONA-one way test

anti-plaque Irsha

0.250

 

anti-septic Irsha

0.125

 

Benzydamine

0.125

 

Fluoride

0.062

 

Epimax

0.031

P value<0.001

Hexodine

0.019

 

Chlorhexidine

0.015

 

Fluorine

0.007

 

Vi-one

0.001

 

 

Table 6- Statistical analysis of minimum fungicidal concentration exhibited by foreign mouthwashes against C. albicans

Types of mouthwashes

MFC (mg/l)

P-value in ANONA-one way test

Colgate

0.250

 

Persica

0.093

 

Matrica

0.062

 

Corpore Sano

0.062

P value<0.001

Foramen

0.062

 

Sensodyne

0.007

 

Oral B

0.003

 

 

 

 

Fig. 1- Comparison the inhibition zone diameter within Iranian and foreign mouthwashes against C. albicansin agar diffusion method

 

 

 

Fig. 2- Comparison the minimum inhibitory concentration within Iranian and foreign mouthwashes against C. albicans in MIC method

 

 

 

Fig. 3- Comparison the minimum fungicidal concentration within Iranian and foreign mouthwashes against C.albicansin MFC method

 

Discussion and conclusion

C.albicans is a commensal organism that can be isolated from the majority of healthy individuals (21). However, in certain susceptible individuals C.albicans can become pathogenic leading to the mucocutaneous infection; oral candidiasis. C.albicans is a fungal organism that is part of the normal oral microbial flora in approximately 50% of healthy individuals (22 and 23). Drugs such as broad spectrum antibiotics alter the local oral flora and lead to a suitable environment for proliferation of Candida (5). Today, in dentistry, in addition to systemic antifungal agents, the local forms (mouthwash) are frequently used. In recent years, increasing resistance to antifungal agents has been observed and the concern about organisms such as C. albicans has been created.

 

In the present study, among foreign mouthwashes, Oral B and Sensodyne showed the most and the least activity against C.albicans respectively. C.albicans resistant to foreign mouthwashes include Colgate, Foramen and Corpore Sano. On the other hand, among Iranian mouthwashes, Vi-one and Persica showed the most and the least activity against C.albicans and among Iranian mouthwashes, including anti-septic Irsha, Benzydamine and anti-plaque Irsha also indicated resistance to C.albicans. Based on our findings, there is no significant difference between Iranian and foreign mouthwashes using independent T-test. Barasch et al., investigated the effect of Chlorhexidine in preventing and treatment of oral candidiasis in children with HIV (24). Lanzos et al., also investigated the effect of Chlorhexidine mouthwash for decreasing oral diseases in individuals which contain a cancer and under radiotherapy. The investigation conducted on 70 patients and showed Chlorhexidine has effective activity for decreasing oral diseases (25).

In agar diffusion method, according to ANOVA-one way test, there is a significant difference within the group of Iranian and foreign mouthwashes (P value<0.001). It’s important that there was a significant difference between Vi-one and all other Iranian mouthwashes except Fluorine. Also among foreign mouthwashes, there was a significant difference between Oral B and all other foreign mouthwashes. Machado et al., investigated the antifungal activity of Chlorhexidine on different species of C.albicans and concluded that it has decreased the colony count of C.albicans 79 to 99% (26). Soares et al., investigated the effect of Chlorhexidine on oral mucositis and microbiological analysis in children which have acute lymphoblastic leukemia, indicated that the number of pathogenic agents, such as C. albicans has been decreased 35.3% (27). In the present study, as the same as other investigations, Chlorhexidine inhibited the growth of C.albicans in vitro and inhibition zone (the mean of 14.21 mm) has been showed. In spite of former studies, which investigated the clinical manifestation of using Chlorhexidine, current study compared the in vitro effect of Iranian and foreign mouthwashes against C. albicans. Giardino et al., compared the antimicrobial activity of sodium hypochlorite and Chlorhexidine and concluded, there was significant difference between the antimicrobial effect of sodium hypochlorite and Chlorhexidine statistically and sodium hypochlorite was more effective (28). In the present study, also there was a significant difference between all mouthwashes and Chlorhexidine except Epimax (P value <0.001). It’s notable that, Sensodyne, Oral B, Matrica, Persica, Fluorine, Hexodine had more effect in comparison with Chlorhexidine and there was a significant difference between Chlorhexidine and mentioned mouthwashes.

Aspalli et al., investigated antiplaque and antigingivitis effect of mouthwash in treatment of plaque induced gingivitis and showed mouthwash is effective in treatment of plaque induced gingivitis and can be effectively used as an adjunct to mechanical therapy with lesser side-effects (29).

In determination of MIC and MFC, in the group of Iranian mouthwashes, the most and the least minimum inhibitory concentration belong to anti-plaque Irsha and Vi-one respectively (0.250 mg/l, 0.001 mg/l). In the group of foreign mouthwashes, the most and the least minimum inhibitory concentration belong to Colgate and Oral B respectively (0.250 mg/l, 0.003 mg/l). Based on independent T-test, in the current investigation, between Iranian and foreign mouthwashes, there was no significant difference. The results of MFC were similar to MIC and all mouthwashes indicated the minimum fungicidal concentration same as minimum inhibitory concentration. There was no significant difference between Iranian and foreign mouthwashes, using independent T-test. Botelho et al., indicated the Chlorhexidine in minimum MIC (0.25-8 µg/ml) also showed anti streptococal activity (30). Jarvinen et al., also indicated MIC of Chlorhexidine which was effective against Streptococcus mutans (31).

In the current study, MIC of Chlorhexidine (0.015 mg/l) was also active against C. albicans. In MIC and MFC methods, according to ANOVA-one way test, there was a significant difference within the group of Iranian and foreign mouthwashes, there was a significant difference within the group of Iranian mouthwashes and the group of foreign mouthwashes (P value <0.001).

These mouthwashes can be used for infection treatments rather than antibiotics to decrease antibiotic resistance. Furthermore, clinical studies are needed to confirm the efficiency of in vivo application.

Our study showed, both Iranian and foreign mouthwashes had a good effect against C.albicans, as a common fungal flora in the mouth.

 

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Islamic Azad University of Karaj for its important technical supports.

(1) Alali F, Al-Lafi T. GC-MS analysis and bioactivity testing of the volatile oil from the leaves of tooth brush tree solvadora persica L. J Natural Product Reports 2003; 17 (3): 189- 94.

(2) Ellepola AN, Samaranayake LP. Antimycotic Agents in oral candidiasis: an over view: 1. Dental Update 2000; 27 (3): 111- 16.

(3) Jr PF. Candida- host interactions in HIV disease: implications for oropharyngeal candidiasis. Advances in Dental Research2011; 23 (1): 45- 9.

(4) Machado FC, Portela MB, Cunha AC, Souza IPR, Soares RMA, Castro GFBA. Antifungal activity of chlorhexidine on Candida spp biofilm. Revista de Odontologia da UNESP 2010; 39 (5): 271- 5.

(5) Akpan A, Morgan R. Oral candidiasis. Postgraduate Medical Journal  2002; 78: 455- 9.

(6) Boerlin P, Boerlin- Petzold F, Durussel C, Addo M, Pagani JL, et al. Cluster of oral atypical Canida albicans isolates ingroup of human immunodeficiency virus- positive drug users. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1995; 33 (5): 1129- 35.

(7) Jeddy N, Ranganathan K, Devi U, Joshua E. A study of antifungal drug sensitivity of Candida isolates from human immunodeficiency virus infected patients in Chennai, south india. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology 2011; 15 (2): 182- 6.

(8) Brito GN, Inocêncio AC, Querido SM, Jorge AO, Koga- Ito CY. In vitro antifungal susceptibility of Candida Spp. Oral isolates from HIV- positive patients and control individuals. Brazilian Oral Research 2011; 25 (1): 28- 33.

(9) Traboulsi RS, Mukherjee PK, Chandra J, Salata RA, Jurevic R, Ghannoum MA. Gentian violet exhibits activity against biofilms fromed by oral Candida isolates obtained from HIV- infected patients.Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55 (6): 3043- 5.

(10)            Premanathan. M, Shakurfow FAA, Ismail AA, Berfad MA. EbrahimAT, Awaj MM. Treatment of oral candidiasis (thrush) by Saccharomyces cerevisiaeInternational Journal of Medical Sciences 2011; 3 (3): 83- 6.

(11)            Taguchi Y, Hayama K, Okada M, Sagawa T, Aria R, Abe S. Therapeutic effects of cinnamaldehyde and potentiation of its efficacy in combinationwith methylcellulose on murine oral candidiasis.Journal of Medical Mycology 2011. 52 (2): 145- 52.

(12)            Boerlin P, Boerlin-Petzold F, Goudet J, Durussel C, Pagani JL, Chave JP, et al. Typing Canida albicans oral isolates from human immunodeficiency­ virus- infected patients by multilocus enzyme electrophoresis and DNA finger printing. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1996; 34 (5): 1235- 48.

(13)            Thompson GR, Patel PK, Kirkpatrick WR, Westbrook SD, Berg D, Erlandsen J, et al. Oropharyngeal candidiasisintheera of antiretroviral therapy.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiology Endod. 2010; 109 (4): 488- 95.

(14)            Callè F, Colella G, Onofrio VD, Rossiello R, Angelillo IF, Liguori G. Candida spp. in oral cancer and oral precancerous lesions. New Microbiolog 2013;36 (3): 283- 8.

(15)            Samaranayake LP. Essential Microbiology for Dentistry.4th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2002.

(16)    McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent. 8 th ed. USA: Patricia Tannian.; 2004.

(17)            Turgut S, Bagis B, Ayaz EA, Ulusoy KU, Altintas SH, Korkmaz FM, et al. Discoloration of provisional restorations after oral rinses. International Journal of Medical Sciences 2013;10 (11): 1503- 9.

(18)            Vianna ME, GomesBP, Berber VB, Zaia AA, Ferraz CC, de Souza- Filho FJ. Invitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of chlorhexidine and sodium hypochlorite. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod 2004; 97 (1): 79- 84.

(19)            Cantón E, Pemán J, Carrillo- Muñoz A, Orero A, Ubeda P, Viudes A, et al. Fluconazole Susceptibilities of Bloodstream Candida sp. Isolates as Determined by National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Method M27- A and Two Other Methods. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2013; 37 (3): 2197- 200.

(20)            Martos AI, Romero A, González MT, González A, Serrano C, Castro C, et al. Evaluation of the Etest method for susceptibility testing of Aspergillus spp and Fusarium spp to three echinocandins. Medical Mycology. 2010; 48 (6): 858- 61.

(21)            Mayer FL, Wilson D, Hube B. Candida albicans pathogenicity mechanisms. Virulence 2013; 4 (2): 119- 28.

(22)            Martinez RFF, Hernández- Pérez F, Fabián- San Miguel G, Jaimes- Aveldañez A, Arenas R. Oral Candida sppcarriers: its prevalence in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 2013; 88 (2): 222- 5.

(23)            Valera MC, Maekawa LE, de Oliveria LD, Jorge AOC, Shygei E, Carvalho CAT.In vitroantimicrobial activity of auxiliary chemical substances and natural extracts on Candidaalbicans and Enterococcus faecalis in root canals. Journal of Applied Oral Science 2013; 21 (2): 118- 23.

(24)            Barasch A, Safford MM, Depakute- Marcus I, Fine DH. Efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate rinse for treatment and prevention of oral candidiasis in HIV- infected children: A pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiology Endod 2004; 97: 204- 07.

(25)            LanzósI, Herrera D, SantosS, O´Connor A, PeñaC, LanzósE, et al. Microbiological effects of an antiseptic mouthrinse in irradiated cancer patients. Medicina Oral Patologia Oral Cirugia Bucal 2011; 16 (7): e1036- 42.

(26)            Machado FC, Portela MB, Cunha AC. Antifungal activity of chlorhexidine on Candida spp biofilm. Revista de Odontologia da UNESP 2010; 39 (5): 271- 5.

(27)            Soares AF, Aquino AR, Carvalho CH, Nonaka CF, Almeida D, Pinto LP. Frequency of oral mucositis and microbiological analysis in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate. Brazilian Dental Journal 2011; 2 (4) 312- 16.

(28)            Giardino L, Savoldi E, Ambu E, Rimondini R, Palezona A, Debbia EA. Antimicrobial effect of mtad, tetraclean, cloreximid, and sodium hypochlorite on three common endodontic pathogens. Indian Journal of Dental Research 2009; 20 (3): 391.- 7

(29)            Aspalli S, Shetty VS, Devarathnamma MV, Nagappa G, Archana D, Parab P. Evaluation of antiplaque and antigingivitis effect of herbal mouthwash in treatment of plaque induced gingivitis: A randomized, clinical trial. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology 2014; 18 (1): 48- 52.

(30)            Botelho MG. The minimum inhibitory concentration of oral antibacteria agents against cariogenic organisms. Microbios 2000; 103 (404): 31- 41.

(31)            Jarvinen H, Tenovuo J, Haovinen P. In vitro susceptibility of streptococcus mutans to chlorhexidine and six other antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 1185- 89.