Comparative Evaluation of a Commercial Herbal Extract and 0.2% Chlorhexidine Mouthwash on Three Periodontal Facultative Anaerobes: An In Vitro Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The application of herbal and/or chemical antimicrobial mouthwashes in addition to the mechanical methods of bacteria removal helps reduce the periopathogens and thus increase the periodontal tissues’ health. The present study aimed to evaluate the antibacterial effect of Thymex (TMX) syrup on three periodontal facultative anaerobes in vitro and compare it with 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash. Methods. In this in vitro experiment, the disc diffusion method was used to measure the inhibitory halo diameter (IhD) of Enterobacter cloacae, Actinomyces viscosus, and Eikenella corrodens. The paper discs containing TMX and CHX were placed on Mueller–Hinton agar media and cultured with the mentioned bacteria. Moreover, a blank disc containing distilled water was used as a control. From each of the three bacterial species, five samples were taken, and after 18 hours of storage in the incubator, the IhDs were measured in millimeters. A one‐way ANOVA test and an independent sample t‐test were used to compare the mean differences of IhDs between groups. The significance level was considered to be 0.05. Results. The IhDs ranged between 6.2–8.8 mm and 12.3–34 mm for TMX and CHX, respectively. CHX showed a more inhibitory effect on all three species of bacteria compared to TMX mouthwash (P < 0.001). Conclusions. Despite the inhibitory effect of TMX on bacterial growth, CHX showed significantly more antibacterial activity than TMX against three studied bacterial species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".