ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
Development and Evaluation of the Antibacterial Properties of an Experimental Herbal Gel Against Cariogenic Bacteria.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecently, products with antibacterial properties derived from medicinal plants have increased as an alternative to conventional drugs. Thus, this study aimed to formulate and evaluate the antibacterial activity of an experimental gel based on Grindelia tarapacana essential oil in a bacterial consortium. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe composition of the essential oil (EO) was determined using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The antibacterial activity of the EO against Streptococcus mutans ATCC 25175, Streptococcus sanguinis ATCC 10556, and Streptococcus salivarius ATCC 13419 was evaluated using an Agar disc diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration methods. Five formulations of the experimental gel were prepared at 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, and 2% (v/v). The antibacterial susceptibility test was evaluated using an Agar-Well diffusion assay against a bacterial consortium of S. mutans, S. sanguinis, and S. salivarius. The physical properties, pH, spreadability, gel morphology, phase separation, and drug release were evaluated. The experimental gels were compared with a chlorhexidine gel. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests with a significant level of 5%.
resultsThe major components of the EO were bornyl acetate, α-isomethyl-E-nerolidol, germacrene B, E-nerolidol, α-cedrene-epoxide, fokienol, and 10-epi-γ-eudesmol. All formulations were effective in inhibiting bacterial growth. The 2% concentration presented inhibition zones (18.14 ± 1.01 mm) similar to those observed for the chlorhexidine gel (p > 0.05). All formulations were stable, without signs of separation, with adequate physical properties, and no significant differences were observed regarding the drug content with the chlorhexidine gel (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe experimental gels based on G. tarapacana EO presented good physicochemical properties and were highly effective in inhibiting the growth of a cariogenic bacterial consortium.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.