Background:Chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash has earned an eponym of the gold standard against oral infections, but with certain limitations. There is no effective alternative to Chlorhexidine. Cranberry is known to inhibit bacterial adhesion in various systemic infections and acts as a strong antioxidant. However, it is less explored for its dental use. Hence, there is a need to evaluate its effect against oral infections.Aim:The aim was to compare the efficacy of 0.2% Chlorhexidine mouthwash with 0.6% Cranberry mouthwash on Streptococcus mutans.Materials and Methods:This was a double-blind, randomized parallel group clinical trial. Total sample of 50 subjects, aged 18–20 years, were randomly divided into two groups, Group A (25) and Group B (25) were given 10 mL of Chlorhexidine mouthwash and Cranberry mouthwash twice daily, respectively, for 14 days each. The plaque samples, which were taken from the subjects on 1st day and 14th day, were inoculated on blood agar plates and incubated at 37°C for 24–48 h. Number of streptococcal colony forming units were calculated using digital colony counter. The data were subjected to paired t-test and unpaired t-test at a 5% significance level.Results:(1) Chlorhexidine mouthwash showed 69% reduction whereas Cranberry mouthwash showed 68% reduction in S. mutans count. (2) No significant difference was seen between Chlorhexidine and Cranberry mouthwash on streptococci.Conclusion:Cranberry mouthwash is equally effective as Chlorhexidine mouthwash with beneficial local and systemic effect. Hence, it can be used effectively as an alternative to Chlorhexidine mouthwash.

Arimedadi oil is equally effective to Chlorhexidine gluconate as an adjunct to mechanical plaque control in prevention of plaque accumulation and gingivitis. Arimedadi oil could be an effective and safe alternative to 2% Chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash due to its prophylactic and therapeutic benefits.

A bstract Background Fluoride (F) is an effective anticaries agent and can be delivered through various mediums at different concentrations. The ability to increase the enamel resistance to acid by decreasing solubility through the incorporation of F into the enamel apatite structure is the primary function of these agents. The efficacy of topical F can be determined by measuring the amount of F incorporated in and on human enamel. Aim To compare the F uptake into and onto the enamel surface of two different F varnishes at different temperatures. Materials and methods In this study, 96 teeth were divided equally and randomly ( n = 48) into two experimental groups (group I and group II). Each group was further divided into four equal subgroups ( n = 12); depending on the temperature (25°, 37°, 50°, and 60°C) they were subjected to Fluor-Protector® 0.7% and Embrace® 5% F varnishes were allocated to experimental groups I and II, respectively, and every sample was individually treated with the assigned F varnish. After the varnish application, two specimens from each subgroup, the group I and group II ( n = 16), were mounted for hard tissue microtome sectioning for scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. The remaining 80 teeth underwent potassium hydroxide (KOH) soluble and KOH-insoluble F estimation. Results Group I and group II, both, showed maximum F uptake of 2817.07 ppm and 1626.8 ppm at 37°C temperature and the lowest of 1168.9 ppm and 1068.93 ppm at 50°C, respectively. The intergroup comparison was carried out using an unpaired t -test and the intragroup comparison was done using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) univariate analysis. Post hoc Tukey test was performed for pairwise comparison between different temperature groups. In group I (Fluor-Protector®), the difference in F uptake was statistically significant when the temperature was increased from 25° to 37° C (mean difference = −9.90, p = 0.016). In group II (Embrace®), a statistically significant difference in F uptake was observed when the temperature was increased from 25° to 50°C (mean difference = 10.00, p = 0.003) and 25° to 60°C (mean difference = 13.38, p = 0.001), respectively. Conclusion Fluor-Protector® varnish proved to have better F uptake in comparison to Embrace® varnish on human enamel. Topical F varnishes were most effective at 37°C, which is close to the standard human body temperature. Thus, the application of warm F varnish ensures more uptake of F in and onto the enamel surface for greater protection against dental caries. How to cite this article Vishwakarma AP, Bondarde P, Vishwakarma P, et al. Evalua...

No abstract