Dos Santos Andrezza C M, Oliveira Viviane C, Macedo Ana P, Bastos Jairo K, Ogasawara Mário S, Watanabe Evandro, Chaguri Isabela M, Silva-Lovato Cláudia H, Paranhos Helena F O
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Café Avenue S/N, Ribeirão Preto 14040-904, SP, Brazil.
Human Exposome and Infectious Diseases Network-HEID, School of Nursing of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Bandeirantes Avenue 3900, Ribeirão Preto 14040-904, SP, Brazil.
Antibiotics (Basel). 2021 Jul 4;10(7):813. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10070813.
Denture dentifrices must be effective and not deleterious to prosthetic devices. This study formulated and evaluated dentifrices based on oils of , , , and . Organoleptic characteristics (appearance, color, odor, taste), physicochemical properties (pH, density, consistency, rheological, abrasiveness, weight loss, and surface roughness) and antimicrobial (Hole-Plate Diffusion-HPD)/anti-biofilm (Colony Forming Units-CFU) action against , and were evaluated. Formulations were compared with water (negative control) and a commercial dentifrice (positive control). The data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (α = 0.05). The organoleptic and physicochemical properties were adequate. All dentifrices promoted weight losses, with high values for and , and an increase in surface roughness, without differing from each other. For antimicrobial action, and dentifrices were similar to positive control showing effectiveness against and and no dentifrice was effective against regarding the anti-biofilm action, the dentifrices were not effective, showing higher CFU counts than positive control for all microorganisms. The dentifrices presented satisfactory properties; and, although they showed antimicrobial action when evaluated by HPD, they showed no effective anti-biofilm action on multispecies biofilm.
假牙洁齿剂必须有效且不会对修复装置造成损害。本研究基于[具体植物名称1]、[具体植物名称2]、[具体植物名称3]、[具体植物名称4]和[具体植物名称5]的油配制并评估了洁齿剂。评估了其感官特性（外观、颜色、气味、味道）、物理化学性质（pH值、密度、稠度、流变学、磨蚀性、重量损失和表面粗糙度）以及对[微生物名称1]、[微生物名称2]和[微生物名称3]的抗菌作用（孔板扩散法-HPD）/抗生物膜作用（菌落形成单位-CFU）。将配方与水（阴性对照）和市售洁齿剂（阳性对照）进行比较。数据通过Kruskal-Wallis和Dunn检验进行分析（α = 0.05）。感官和物理化学性质良好。所有洁齿剂均导致重量损失，[具体植物名称1]和[具体植物名称2]的损失值较高，且表面粗糙度增加，彼此之间无差异。对于抗菌作用，[具体植物名称1]和[具体植物名称2]洁齿剂与阳性对照相似，对[微生物名称1]和[微生物名称2]显示出有效性，而对于抗生物膜作用，没有洁齿剂对[微生物名称3]有效，所有微生物的洁齿剂均无效，显示出比阳性对照更高的CFU计数。这些洁齿剂具有令人满意的性质；并且，尽管通过HPD评估时它们显示出抗菌作用，但对多物种生物膜没有有效的抗生物膜作用。
