ArticleInfection and drug resistance2026
Development and in vitro Antifungal Evaluation of a Ternary Essential Oil-Based Oral Phytopharmaceutical Formulation Against
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2026. 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: The increasing resistance of Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the phytochemical profile and antifungal activity of a phytopharmaceutical formulation composed of essential oils from Methodology: The chemical composition was characterized by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS). A total of 40 compounds were identified, with carvacrol (30.01%), α-citral (12.57%), β-citral (9.55%), linalool (8.47%), (E)-2-decenal (8.38%), and geraniol (2.81%) as the major constituents. Antifungal activity was assessed using the agar diffusion method against Results: The ternary formulation at 10% in an alcoholic vehicle exhibited the largest inhibition zone (77.89 ± 2.48 mm), significantly surpassing both positive controls, including 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate (35.13 ± 0.01 mm) and fluconazole (21.63 ± 6.29 mm). The aqueous formulation also demonstrated considerable antifungal activity, although lower than the alcoholic system. Conclusion: The novel phytopharmaceutical formulation demonstrated notable antifungal activity and may represent a promising natural alternative for oral candidiasis management. Nevertheless, further studies incorporating complementary methodologies, such as minimum inhibitory and fungicidal concentration (MIC/MFC) assays, as well as in vivo and biocompatibility evaluations, would contribute to strengthening the translational potential and clinical applicability of these findings.
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.