Antimicrobial Evaluation of Some Dental remedial Plant Extracts from Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was conducted to determine antimicrobial activity of stem extracts popularly used in folk medicine to treat dental plague and caries in human. The sampling was done during the months of May, June and July 2011. Two methods were employed for the determination of antimicrobial activities, an agar well diffusion method and determination of MIC. The aqueous, ethanolic, and hexane extracts were assayed for antimicrobial activities. The following bacterial strains were employed in the screening studies: Streptococcus mutans , Enterococcus faecalis , Prophyromonas gingivalis , Streptococcs sobrinus , Lactobacillus acidophilus , Lactobacillus plantum , Streptococcus sanguis , Actinomyces viscosus , Lactobacillus casei , Streptococcus salivarius , Staphylococcus aureus , Bacillus sublitis , Streptococcus viridians , Escherichia coli , Aspergillus niger , Penicillum notatum and Candida albicans . The results has revealed significant antibacterial effect of the ethanol extract. The study thus justifies ethanolic medicinal use of the plants as a dental plague remedy. Key words: aqueous, ethanolic, hexane extracts, antimicrobial organisms, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".