Comparison of Antibacterial Effect of Fluoride and Chlorhexidine on Two Cariogenic Bacteria: An in Vitro Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statement of problem: Dental plaque is the main source for dental caries and there is no proper vaccine that can affect dental plaques. Objectives: Daily use of an efficient anti-plaque product can be very beneficial in plaque control and, thus, prevention of caries. This study aims to evaluate the antibacterial effects of four products of Chlorhexidine and Fluoride on two types of cariogenic bacteria. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, the antibacterial effect of Chlorhexidine and Fluoride (gel and solution) against Streptococci Sanguis and Sobrinus was evaluated. Chlorhexidine gluconate 1% gel (Corosodyl, France), Chlorhexidine gluconate 2% solution (Consepsis, Ultradent, US), Sodium fluoride 0.2% solution (Oral-B, US) and Acidulated Phosphate Fluoride 1.23% gel ( Denti-Care, Canada) were used. The disc diffusion method was used for testing bacterial sensitivity. The data were analyzed using paired t-test and Chi-square test. Results: In comparison with the negative control, each of the four gels and solutions showed antibacterial effects but the effects were not statistically significant for fluoride solution (P=0.217). For S. Sobrinus, the mean diameter of inhibition zone around the discs coated with fluoride gel (F g), fluoride solution (F s), Chlorhexidine gel (CHX g) and Chlorhexidine solution (CHX s) were 19, 9, 21.5 and 27.5mm, respectively. For S. Sanguis, the mean diameter of inhibition zone around the discs coated with F g, F s, CHX g and CHX s were 17, 11, 17 and 25mm, respectively. CHX s had the most effect on both bacteria and F s had the least. CHX g and F g were less effective than CHX s, respectively. Conclusion: The results demonstrated that 2% CHX s and 1.23% F g can be effective on inhibition of the growth of some of cariogenic bacteria. Therefore, these agents can be used in the prevention of Early Childhood Caries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".