The disadvantage of liners materials is the difficulty of biofilm control. It was compared an experimental dentifrice contained Ricinus communis, with commercials dentifrices as antibiofilm activity against microorganisms on denture liner. Six hundred specimens were distributed in 5 groups (n=18/ microorganism): water; experimental dentifrice; specific dentifrice for denture and two conventional dentifrices against C. albicans; C. glabrata; S. mutans; S. aureus; E. coli. Each group had a negative (n=5; without contamination) and positive control (n=15/ microorganism; without cleaning). The antibiofilm activity was evaluated by the method of biofilm formation in triplicate. The specimens were contaminated in a standard way and incubated. After that, manual brushing was performed (60 s), washed with PBS, immersed in liquid culture medium for resuspension and sowing in solid medium. The results (mean of triplicates) were expressed in CFU/mL. The data was submitted to Shapiro-Wilk, ANOVA and Tukey test (p<0.05). The specific dentifrice (1.27±1.20) was the most effective against S. mutans, followed by conventional (Trihydral, 3.13±0.88; Colgate, 2.16±2.02) and experimental (3.81±1.37) dentifrices, which were similar to each other (p=0.008). All of them were different from water (4.79±1.42). The specific (0.21±0.21) and experimental (0.36±0.25) dentifrices were similar against S. aureus, with a higher mean of CFU when compared to conventional (Colgate, 0.06±0.13), which was more efficient (p=0.000). For C. albicans, C. glabrata and E. coli, all dentifrices were similar to water (p=0.186). It was concluded, that the experimental dentifrice was effective against S. aureus and had not efficacy against Candida spp.; S. mutans; E. coli, as occurred with the commercials dentifrices.