Comparative antibacterial efficacy of a commercially available herbal mouthwash and chlorhexidine mouthwash against Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans: an in vitro study

Leina R. Pradhan; Kalpna Chaudhry; Nitin Khanduri; Yoshita Gupta; Chandni Dhyani

doi:10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20260399

Authors

Leina R. Pradhan Department of Pediatrics and Preventive Dentistry, Seema Dental College & Hospital, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
Kalpna Chaudhry Department of Pediatrics and Preventive Dentistry, Seema Dental College & Hospital, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
Nitin Khanduri Department of Pediatrics and Preventive Dentistry, Seema Dental College & Hospital, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
Yoshita Gupta Department of Pediatrics and Preventive Dentistry, Seema Dental College & Hospital, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
Chandni Dhyani Department of Pediatrics and Preventive Dentistry, Seema Dental College & Hospital, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20260399

Keywords:

Herbal mouthwash, Chlorhexidine, A. actinomycetemcomitan, Antibacterial activity, Pediatric dentistry

Abstract

Background: Dental caries and periodontal diseases are widespread oral health problems caused primarily by plaque-forming microorganisms. While chlorhexidine (CHX) is widely used and highly effective as a chemical plaque-control agent, its prolonged use is limited by side effects such as staining and altered taste. This has led to growing interest in herbal mouthwashes, which offer antimicrobial benefits with fewer adverse effects, making them a promising natural alternative for long-term oral hygiene. To compare the antibacterial efficacy of a herbal mouthwash (Turmwash™) with chlorhexidine (Hexidine™) against Actinomyces actinomycetemcomitans using agar well diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assays.

Methods: A. actinomycetemcomitans (ATCC 29522) was revived and cultured. Antibacterial activity of Turmwash™ and Hexidine™ was assessed by measuring zones of inhibition (ZOI) on Mueller–Hinton agar. MIC was determined using two-fold serial dilutions (1000–1.95 µg/mL) in Mueller–Hinton broth, followed by resazurin-based growth confirmation. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, with p<0.05 considered significant.

Results: Mean ZOI values for Turmwash™ ranged from 20–22 mm, while Hexidine™ showed ZOI values of 24–25 mm. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between the two (p = 0.125). MIC assays demonstrated that Turmwash™ inhibited bacterial growth between 15.62 µg/ml and 31.25 µg/mL, with higher concentrations showing complete inhibition.

Conclusions: Although Hexidine™ exhibited slightly higher antibacterial activity, the difference compared with the herbal mouthwash was not statistically significant. Turmwash™ demonstrated substantial antibacterial efficacy against A. actinomycetemcomitans, suggesting it may serve as a potential natural alternative to chlorhexidine with reduced risk of side effects.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Nagappan N, Palaneeswaran K, Kumarappan K, Natarajan R, Tajuddin R, Anusha Y. Antimicrobial efficacy of herbal and chlorhexidine mouthrinse against Staphylococcus aureus-An in vitro microbiological study. J Pharm Bioall Sci. 2022;14:318-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_821_21

Akbar P, Salahuddin N, Ahmad Z, Shah SZ, Shah F, Maknoon D. Role of Actinomyces species in oral biofilm formation and dental plaque-related diseases. Innov Res Appl Biol Chem Sci. 2024;2(1):120-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62497/IRABCS.2024.50

Richa G, Pudakalkatti PS, Joshi V. Evaluation and comparison of the antimicrobial effect of two different mouthwashes on selected periodontal pathogens: An in vitro study. J Curr Res Sci Med. 2017;3:40-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrsm.jcrsm_40_16

Tang G, Yip HK, Samaranayake LP, Luo G, Lo ECM, Teo CS. Actinomyces spp. in supragingival plaque of ethnic Chinese preschool children with and without active dental caries. Caries Res. 2003;37(5):381-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000072172

Deus FP, Ouanounou A. Chlorhexidine in dentistry: pharmacology, uses, and adverse effects. Int Dent J. 2022;72(3):269–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2022.01.005

Pathan MM, Bhat KG, Joshi VM. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of a herbal mouthwash and chlorhexidine mouthwash on select periodontal pathogens: An in vitro and ex vivo study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2017;21:270-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_382_16

Verma M, Khan MA, Pathak AK, Lal N, Garg R. Magic of Ayurveda in the treatment of pyorrhea-a review article. World J Pharma Med Res. 2023;9(2):75-87.

Pagare IS, Beldar S, Mandage UR, Shirsath RB, Patil JR. Herbal mouthwash: a detailed review and analysis. Int J Res Anal Rev. 2024;11(4):178.

Vinod KS, Sunil KS, Sethi P, Bandla RC, Singh S, Patel D. A novel herbal formulation versus chlorhexidine mouthwash in efficacy against oral microflora. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent. 2018;8:184-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_59_18

Rahmandost M, Babaei A, Momeni Z. Antibacterial effects of Zataria multiflora and Eucalyptus camaldulensis extracts versus 0.2% chlorhexidine on Streptococcus mutans count: an in vitro study. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2025;25:413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-025-05148-7

Fischman SL. The history of oral hygiene products: How far have we come in 6000 years. Periodontol. 2000;15:7-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1997.tb00099.x

Singh S, Aggarwal BB. Curcumin: the Indian solid gold. J Periodontol. 2015;86(10):1320–6.

Xu XY, Meng X, Li S, Gan RY, Li Y, Li HB. Bioactivity, health benefits, and related molecular mechanisms of curcumin: current progress, challenges, and perspectives. Nutrients. 2018;10(10):1553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10101553