Antimicrobial Activity of Alcoholic German Chamomile Extract Against Oral Pathogens Including Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Candida albicans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resistance to common antiseptics has driven interest in plant-based alternatives to address recurring oral infections caused by bacterial and fungal pathogens.The antimicrobial activity of alcoholic German Chamomile extract was evaluated using agar well diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration, minimum bactericidal concentration, and minimum fungicidal concentration (MIC/MBC/MFC) assays against ten isolates each of Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Candida albicans.GC-MS analysis identified key phytochemicals such as α-bisabolol, apigenin, and chamazulene in the ethanolic extract.The antimicrobial potential was tested by the agar well diffusion method using 10, 20, 30, and 40% concentrations with 0.2% chlorhexidine as a positive control.The extract inhibited all of the tested microbes in a concentration-dependent manner and was most effective against C. albicans, followed by S. mutans and L. acidophilus.One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed significant differences (p < 0.05) at extract concentrations of 20-40% among microbial responses.Inhibition zones were comparable to those of chlorhexidine, confirming the extract's potency.MIC and MFC values for C. albicans were as low as 2.5% and 1.25%, respectively.In contrast, S. mutans showed moderate sensitivity to the extract, with MIC and MFC values of 5.0% and 2.5%, respectively.L. acidophilus, however, required higher concentrations to achieve full inhibitory and fungal effects, with MIC and MFC values of 10.0% and 5%, respectively, suggesting a higher relative resistance of this bacterial species to the extract.The extract showed pronounced antifungal and antibacterial effects at specific concentrations, with efficacy comparable to chlorhexidine.These effects are attributed to the presence of multiple bioactive compounds.Accordingly, Chamomile extract represents a promising natural candidate for the development of safe and effective alternatives to conventional chemical antiseptics in oral care, although further clinical and pharmaceutical investigations are required to validate its safety and therapeutic potential.
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) | 0.001 | 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".