Antibacterial effects of aqueous and alcoholic extracts of Zataria multiflora in comparison with chlorhexidine mouthwash on some pathogenic oral streptococci: An in vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Increasing antibiotic resistance to pathogenic microorganisms (Streptococci) has led scientists around the world to turn to medicinal plants. In this study, the effects of aqueous and alcoholic extracts of Zataria multiflora on the in vitro growth of Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sanguis have been considered and compared with 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, the inhibitory growth zone was accessed by the disc diffusion method after 48 h of incubation at 37 C. To find out the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of treatments, colony counts of cultured bacteria on nutrient agar have been considered at serial dilution at 1/2-1/1024 dilution rates. An independent t -test was used to compare the antibacterial effects of extracts while the level of significance of was considered to be 5% ( P < 0.05). Results: The inhibitory growth zones of aqueous and alcoholic extracts on S. mutans were 26.8 mm and 35.8 mm, respectively, whereas growth zones for S. sanguis were considered as 25.8 mm and 33.2 mm, sequentially. Comparisons showed better effects of alcohol compared to aqueous extract ( P > 0.05). The MIC and MBC assessments showed the same results ( P > 0.05). In all comparisons, the effects of 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash were significantly better than both Z. multiflora aqueous and alcoholic extracts ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: The different solvents may have contributed to the better effects of an alcoholic to aqueous extract of Z. multiflora on the growth of both bacteria. These two extracts could be used for early inhibition of the growth of the planktonic phase, as well as for better oral taste after chlorhexidine applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".