ArticleGalen medical journal2024
Production and Evaluation the Pharmacokinetic Effects of Probiotic Mouthwashes and Their Impacts on Periopathogenic Bacteria in Vitro : Pharmacokinetic Effects of Probiotic Mouthwashes on Periopathogenic Bacteria.
Article in Galen medical journal, 2024. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In this study, the pharmacokinetic effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus (L.rh) and Lactobacillus reuteri (L.r) mouthwashes were investigated and the effects of these two bacteria on the Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (A.a) and Purofiromonas gingivalis (P.g) were compared. The results indicated which of the following probiotics has the inhibitoriest effect on priopathogens. Materials and Methods: Two types of mouthwash containing two probiotics; L. reuteri and L. rhamnosus, were produced. To evaluate the pharmacokinetics of each of the probiotic strains in the mouthwashes, tests for hydrogen peroxide resistance, lysozyme resistance, quantitative calculation of organic acids, and disk diffusion were performed. The Antipathogenic test was also performed to determine the extent of growth inhibition of the mouthwashes against the periopathogens of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Porphyromonas gingivalis. Results: L. rhamnosus probiotic was more resistant to hydrogen peroxide but less resistant to lysozyme enzyme than L. reuteri. The production of organic acids after 72 hours of incubation at 37 ͦ C in the L. reuteri strain was significantly higher than the L. rhamnosus. The amount of growth inhibition zone formed by the periopathogenes was detected. Both strains of lactobacilli used in the mouthwashes had good resistance to antibiotics. Conclusion: L. reuteri had a higher resistance to the enzyme lysozyme. However, due to the higher production of organic acids and the possibility of its negative impact on the structure of tooth enamel, the use of this bacteria is not ultimately desirable to maintain oral hygiene. According to the data of this study, due to the high resistance of L. rhamnosus to hydrogen peroxide and antibiotics and its greater effect on periopathogenic strains, the use of this bacteria in comparison with L. reuteri in the laboratory environment has more advantages.
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.