Efficacy of Toothpaste in Reducing Micro-Flora Isolated from Toothbrush
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral cavity is the easiest site of entry of microorganisms during breathing, eating, drinking and brushing which can lead to several bacterial infections in oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, gastrointestinal tracts etc. Toothbrushes commonly used to maintain oral health and prevent dental disease; but unfortunately, how keeping the toothbrush is neglected. A wide range of chemicals have been added to toothpastes in order to produce a direct inhibitory effect on plaque formation and kill microorganisms. The aims of the study were to investigate the relationship between toothbrush keeping place, its microbial content determine the type of micro-flora present in toothbrush kept in different locations and to determine efficacy of toothpaste in reducing micro-flora isolated from toothbrush. Used toothbrushes were taken from 21 individuals. 2 (1 herbal and 1 regular) toothpastes were selected for the study and were collected from local market. Standard pour plate method and plate count method were performed to determine the reduction of microbial load. Out of 21 toothbrushes, 19 (90.48%) were found to be growth positive and 2 (9.52%) were growth negative. Common Gram positive organisms isolates includes Lactobacillus species (20%), Bacillus subtilis (5%), Bacillus megaterium (5%), Stahpylococcus aureus (25%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (10%), Micrococcus species (10%) and Gram negative organisms isolated include Citrobacter freundii (5%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5%), Proteus mirabilis (5%), Enterobacter species (5%) and Klebsiella pneumonia (5%). Toothbrushes kept in the toilet/bathroom showed contamination with pathogens. Toothpaste T1 was found to be better at reducing microbial load compared to T2. Toilet/bathroom is the worst place for keeping toothbrushes. Toothpastes have their own patent, specialty and were found to be effective against the microorganisms. Synergistic interactions between the principal components of toothpaste can be considered to be a vital part of their efficacy.Kathmandu University Journal of Science, Engineering and TechnologyVol. 13, No. 2, 2017, page: 71-78
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".