Avaliação in vitro da sensibilidade do microbioma oral de cães labradores retrievers frente a extratos vegetais
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research was to evaluate the antimicrobial activity in vitro ofspecies extracts on oral microbioma from 12 Labrador retriviers. The plants species are: Anacardium ocidentalis; Harpagophytum procumbens; Momordica charantia L.; Punica granatum; Psidium guajava L.; Stryphnodendron adstringens and Uncaria tomentose. Polar extracts from plant samples was used in this research. The qualitative and quantitative phytochemical assay was performed to classify the main metabolites classes existent. Then was settled the minimal inhibitory concentration of extracts by diffusion test using disco in Brain Heart Infusion Agar. Plants samples concentration used in this test was 250 mg/mL, 125 mg/mL, 62,5 mg/mL, 31,25 mg/mL, 5 mg/mL put on filter paper discos. Next, these discos were transfer to petri dishes with BHI Agar strewed together with saliva content oral microbioma from twelve dogs. After 12 hours of incubation in 32oC was analysed the results of inhibition halo from extract action on microbiome compared to inhibition halos of 0,12% chlorhexidine discos as a control. Variance analyses and Turkey’s test were employed to data interpretation with 5% significance. Punica granatum extract shows a large inhibition halo in concentrations of 250 mg/mL and 125 mg/mL where as, Psidium guajava had a large inhibition halo in concentrations of 250 mg/mL. Extracts from Anacardium ocidentalis, Uncaria tomentosa, Stryphnodendron adstringens, Momordica charantia L., had halos same as 0,12% chlorhexidine control. Under these circumstances, perhaps the antibacterial activity of extractsis associated with the presence of phenolic compounds, condensed tannin and flavonoids as show in phytochemical assay. In conclusion, the results show that oral microbioma from 12 dogs was more sensitivity using Punica granatum and Psidium guajava extacts, in concentrations of 125 mg/mL and 250 mg/mL, camapred to 0,12% chlorhexidine control. For these reasons, is possible see the importance of medicinal plants as a therapeutic resource and an applicability in veterinary odontology.
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 | 0.000 | 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".