Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 1887    
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 242-246

Comparison between antibacterial effect of chlorhexidine 0.2% and different concentrations of cyperus rotundus extract: An in vitro study

1 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Endodontics, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Hamideh Farajian Zadeh
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Shahed University, Keshavarz Boulevard, Tehran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_157_17

Rights and Permissions

Aims and Objectives: Modern methods of caries prevention concentrated on natural ingredients usage such as probiotics and polyphenols that are safer for young children with Streptococcus mutans inhibitory properties. The purpose of this study was to compare antibacterial effects of different concentration of Cyperus rotundus extract and chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.2% mouthwash on S. mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, the antibacterial effectiveness of the C. rotundus extract and CHX was compared with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) test in tube, minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) test in solid medium, and disc diffusion for measurement of inhibition zone. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, one sample t-test, and independent sample t-test statistical methods by SPSS. 24 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Results: MIC and MBC values of the C. rotundus extract were obtained 225 and 450 mg/ml, respectively, for S. mutans and 108 and 225 mg/ml for L. acidophilus, which are more than CHX (0.5, 1 res.). The inhibition zone increased in a dose-dependent manner but lower than CHX. Conclusion: The C. rotundus extract had antibacterial effects (bactericide and bacteriostatic) on S. mutans and L. acidophillus. Although this effect was lower than CHX. With regard to adverse effect of CHX, this extract can be a potential antibacterial agent.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded209    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal