{"id":38078,"date":"2021-03-30T10:18:21","date_gmt":"2021-03-30T10:18:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=38078"},"modified":"2021-08-02T11:35:50","modified_gmt":"2021-08-02T11:35:50","slug":"evaluation-of-antioxidant-and-antimicrobial-efficacy-of-camellia-sinensis-and-alstonia-scholaris-extracts-on-streptococcus-mutans-and-lactobacillus-acidophilus-an-in-vitro-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol14no1\/evaluation-of-antioxidant-and-antimicrobial-efficacy-of-camellia-sinensis-and-alstonia-scholaris-extracts-on-streptococcus-mutans-and-lactobacillus-acidophilus-an-in-vitro-study\/","title":{"rendered":"Evaluation of Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Efficacy of Camellia Sinensis and Alstonia Scholaris Extracts on Streptococcus Mutans and Lactobacillus Acidophilus – An in Vitro Study."},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Initially originated from China, tea has ruled heart of people as one of the most popular beverage.1<\/sup> Tea is known to be produced from Camellia sinensis<\/em>, a shrub of Theaceae<\/em> family. 2<\/sup>\u00a0 Since ancient era, herbs have been used in nutrition, fragrance, flavoring, and beverages and as an essential medicine.3<\/sup> In Japan, there is a tradition to drink green tea after every meal to cleanse their mouth.4<\/sup> Green tea is enriched with proteins, phenolic compounds, flavonoids and minerals.3<\/sup> Many studies have reported its antibiotic, anti inflammatory, anti oxidative, antifungal, anti diabetic, anti viral, anti mutagenic properties.5- 11<\/sup> The limited literature suggests that green tea interferes with caries formation at every step and inhibit the process.11<\/sup><\/p>\n

Similarly, Alstonia scholaris<\/em> has also reported potent anti microbial activity in ancient era.12, 13, 14, 15<\/sup> Alstonia scholaris<\/em> belongs to the family of Apocynaceae. <\/em>The plant is called as Datyuni <\/em>and Chatiun <\/em>in Hindi, Devil tree<\/em> in English, Doddapala<\/em> in kannada and Saptaparna <\/em>in Sanskrit. Traditionally, the plant is used as analgesic, immunomodulant in liver disorders, kidney problems, skin disorders, respiratory disorders, urinogenital disorders, Central Nervous System disorder, cardiac disorders and gastro- intestinal disorders. The plant possesses antimicrobial, antioxidant, anticancer, analgesic, anti-inflammatory, anti fertility, and anti inflammatory activity. It contains various phytochemicals like alkaloids, phlobatanins, phenolics, steroids, saponins, flavonoids and tannins.\u00a016<\/sup><\/p>\n

Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans)<\/em> is one among the leading micro organisms responsible for dental caries.1<\/sup> It initiates the dental caries and Lactobacillus<\/em> acidophilus<\/em> (L. acidophilus<\/em>) is further responsible for its progression.17<\/sup>\u00a0The literature available on the antimicrobial efficacy of Camellia sinensis<\/em> and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> plant extracts on these oral microorganisms is scanty. Hence, this research was undertaken to systematically assess the minimum inhibitory concentration and antimicrobial efficacy of Camellia sinensis<\/em> extract and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> on S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Materials and Method<\/strong><\/p>\n

Study design and setting<\/strong><\/p>\n

This was an in vitro<\/em> study conducted at Division of Biotechnology and Bioinformtics, Department of Water and Science, Faculty of Life Science, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research over a period of three months. Study protocol was approved by the Institutions ethics committee (IEC).<\/p>\n

Plant material<\/strong><\/p>\n

The leaves of Camellia sinensis<\/em> and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> plants were collected from in and around Mysuru after authentication by a taxonomist. The leaves were rinsed with water and shade dried over a period of three-four weeks at room temperature. The dried leaves were powdered using domestic blender and mixer grinder to obtain fine powder. Thereafter, the powder was filled in airtight plastic bottles and stored in refrigerator at 40<\/sup>C until further use.<\/p>\n

Plant extraction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The extraction process of finely ground Camellia sinensis<\/em> and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> were carried out using Soxhlet apparatus. \u201cThimble\u201d was filled with 50 g of ground powder and loaded into the Soxhlet extractor. Subsequently, distillation flask was filled with solvent (ethanol). This cycle was repeated many times to get desired concentrated compound into the distillation flask. A rotary evaporator at 30\u00b0C\u201360\u00b0C was used to dry and concentrate the solvent extract under reduced pressure (30\u2009\u00b1\u200910\u2009mbar) to a syrupy consistency. Finally, extract was dried at room temperature. The weight of the dried mass was recorded for further experimental studies.<\/p>\n

Anti oxidant Assays<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Anti oxidant activity of Camellia sinensis<\/em> and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> was measured against 1, 1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical activity. DPPH is a nitrogen centered free radical which gets reduced to diphenyl picryl hydrazine upon reduction. The color changes from purple to yellow\/ colorless upon reduction.15<\/sup><\/p>\n

DPPH assay<\/strong><\/p>\n

Standard 1ml of ascorbic acid solution (control) was mixed with 3 ml of 0.002% DPPH solution and checked for absorbance using Ultra Violet-Visible Spectrophotometer at 517nm. Similarly, 1ml of Camellia sinensis<\/em> and \u00a0<\/em>Alstonia scholaris<\/em> was mixed with 0.002% DPPH solution at different concentrations (25, 50, 75, 100, 125 and 150 \u03bcg\/ml in methanol) and checked for absorbance at 517 nm. The mixtures were kept in dark for 30 min to stabilize them before measuring the absorbance. High free radical-scavenging was indicated by low absorbance of the mixture which in turn reflects high anti oxidant activity.<\/p>\n

The percent inhibition was calculated for Camellia sinensis<\/em> and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> as:<\/p>\n

Inhibition (%) of DPPH activity =A-B\/A * 100<\/p>\n

Where A is Absorbance of control and B is Absorbance of Test.<\/p>\n

Experiments were conducted in triplicates.<\/p>\n

Bacteria<\/strong><\/p>\n

MTCC (Microbial Type Culture Collection) strains of S. mutans<\/em> (MTCC 890) and L. <\/em>acidophilus<\/em> (MTCC 10307) were collected. Bacteria were enlivened at chemical laboratory for further microbiological assay. Bacterial cultures were maintained on Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) agar slants with periodic sub culturing and stored at 4\u00b0 C.<\/p>\n

Antimicrobial efficacy testing<\/strong><\/p>\n

Agar well\/ disc diffusion method was used to assess the antimicrobial efficacy of plant extracts (50 \u00b5l volume). 0.2% Chlorhexidine as positive control and ethanol as negative control was used. Initially antimicrobial efficacy was checked at varying concentration (1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 6%, and 10%) for both the plant extracts. A transparent scale was used to measure the diameter of the inhibition zone at three different planes on the under surface of agar plate. The experiment was further triplicated using the most effective single concentration based on the initial experimentation. Diameter of inhibition zone was computed at three different planes on the under surface of agar plate. Mean inhibition zone was computed based on results of these\u00a0experiments. Minimum inhibitory concentration was that minimum concentration of plant extract that inhibited the growth of these microorganisms.<\/p>\n

Statistical Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n

Data analysis was done using SPSS version 22. Mean diameter of inhibition zone was compared using One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey\u2019s post hoc test between test, positive and negative control for both the bacteria. Anti microbial efficacy between 4% Camellia sinensis<\/em> and 10% Alstonia scholaris <\/em>extracts against S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus<\/em> was compared using independent sample\u2018t\u2019 test. Anti- oxidant capacity of Ascorbic acid (standard), Camellia sinensis<\/em> and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> was compared at different concentration using One- Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey\u2019s post hoc test. The statistical significance was fixed at 0.05.<\/p>\n

Results<\/strong><\/p>\n

The details of plant extracts and bacteria used in the study are denoted in Table 1 and 2 respectively. The result showed potent antibacterial and anti- oxidant activity of Camellia sinensis<\/em> and Alstonia scholaris <\/em>extracts against S. mutans <\/em>and L. acidophilus<\/em>. Anti microbial activity was based upon the assessment of mean zone of inhibition. Larger mean zone of inhibition indicated higher antimicrobial activity. Similarly, anti- oxidant activity was assessed by recording absorbance value through spectrophotometer. Percentage inhibition of DPPH free radical was calculated through absorbance value. High inhibition percentage indicated high anti oxidant activity.<\/p>\n

Table 1: Details of plant extracts used in the experiment.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Plant (common name)<\/strong><\/td>\nBotanical name<\/strong><\/td>\nFamily<\/strong><\/td>\nWeight of dried extract<\/strong><\/td>\nYield (%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Green tea<\/td>\nCamellia sinensis<\/em><\/td>\nTheaceae<\/td>\n9.075 gm<\/td>\n18.15<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Blackboard tree, Devil tree, Ditabark, Milkwood-pine, White cheesewood Chatian\/Chitvan. (Hindi ), Maddale (Kannada),<\/td>\nAlstonia scholaris<\/em><\/td>\nApocynaceae<\/em><\/td>\n6.791<\/td>\n13.58<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 2: Details of bacteria used for anti microbial efficacy testing.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Bacteria<\/strong><\/td>\nMTCC number<\/strong><\/td>\nSelective media used for revival<\/strong><\/td>\nTypes of hemolysis on blood agar<\/strong><\/td>\nMedia for anti microbial efficacy testing<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
S mutans<\/td>\n890<\/td>\nBrain Heart Infusion with 5% sheep blood<\/td>\nGamma hemolysis<\/td>\nBrain Heart Infusion agar<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
L acidophilus<\/td>\n10307<\/td>\nBrain Heart Infusion with 5% sheep blood<\/td>\nAlpha hemolysis<\/td>\nBrain Heart Infusion agar<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

MIC of Camellia sinensis and Alstonia scholaris extracts against S. mutans and L. acidophilus.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Camellia sinensis <\/em>did not demonstrate any inhibitory activity against S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus<\/em> at concentrations 1%, 2% and 3%. Alstonia scholaris<\/em> did not demonstrate any inhibition against S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus<\/em> at 1%, 2% 3%, 4% and 6%. Hence, Minimum Inhibitory Concentration for Camellia sinensis<\/em> against S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus<\/em> was considered to be 4% while for Alstonia scholaris<\/em>, it was 10%.<\/p>\n

In the initial experiment, Camellia sinensis<\/em> produced a mean inhibition zone of 27.5\u00b1 0.7mm against S. mutans<\/em> and 26.0\u00b1 1.4mm against L. acidophilus<\/em> at 4% concentration which was significantly lower when compared with mean Zone of Inhibition produced by 0.2% Chlorhexidine against S. mutans<\/em> (32.5\u00b10.7mm) and L. acidophilus<\/em> (34.0\u00b11.4mm) (p < 0.05, Table 3). Mean zone of inhibition significantly increased with increasing concentration of Camellia sinensis <\/em>against S. mutans<\/em> (p < 0.05, Table 3). <\/em>However, there was no significant difference in the mean zone of inhibition produced by Camellia sinensis <\/em>at 4% and 6% concentrations on these bacteria (p = 0.38, Table 3). <\/em>Mean zone of inhibition significantly decreased with increasing concentration of Camellia sinensis <\/em>against L. acidophilus<\/em> (p < 0.05, Table 3).<\/em>Here also, the difference between 4% and 6% was not statistically significant (p > 0.41, Table 3).<\/p>\n

Table 3: Anti microbal efficacy of Camellia sinensis<\/em> and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> extracts against S. mutans <\/em>and L. acidophilus <\/em>at different concentrations in the initial experiment.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/td>\nConcentration of plant extracts<\/strong><\/td>\nCamellia sinensis <\/em><\/strong>(CS)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>(Mean \u00b1 SD)<\/strong><\/td>\n

Alstonia scholaris <\/em><\/strong>(AS)<\/strong><\/p>\n

(Mean \u00b1 SD)<\/strong><\/td>\n

Chlorhexidine (C) (0.2%) #<\/sup><\/strong><\/p>\n

(Mean \u00b1 SD)<\/strong><\/td>\n

Statistical inference<\/strong><\/td>\nPost hoc<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
S. mutans<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n4% (1)<\/td>\n27.50\u00b1 0.71<\/td>\nNo activity<\/td>\n32.50\u00b10.71<\/td>\nt value: -7.07<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

p value: 0.02<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6% (2)<\/td>\n31.00\u00b1 1.41<\/td>\nNo activity<\/td>\n34.00\u00b1 2.83<\/td>\nt value:-1.34<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

p value: 0.31<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10% (3)<\/td>\n37.50\u00b1 3.54<\/td>\n23.00\u00b1 2.83<\/td>\n37.00\u00b1 1.41<\/td>\nF value: 18.07<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

p value: 0.02<\/td>\n

CS vs AS:0.03<\/p>\n

CS vs C: 0.98<\/p>\n

AS vs C: 0.03<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Statistical inference: <\/strong><\/td>\nF value: 10.30<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

p value: 0.04<\/td>\n

No statistic computed<\/td>\nF value: 3.00<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

p value: 0.19<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Post hoc: <\/strong><\/td>\n1 vs 2: 0.38<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.04<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.12<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n1 vs 2: 0.73<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.18<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.37<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
L. acidophilus<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n4% (1)<\/td>\n26.00\u00b1 1.41<\/td>\nNo activity<\/td>\n34.00\u00b11.41<\/td>\nt value: -5.66<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

p value: 0.03<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6% (2)<\/td>\n22.50\u00b1 3.54<\/td>\nNo activity<\/td>\n32.50\u00b1 3.54<\/td>\nt value: 2.83<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

p value: 0.11<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10% (3)<\/td>\n11.00\u00b1 1.41<\/td>\n25.50\u00b1 2.12<\/td>\n27.50\u00b1 3.54<\/td>\nF value: 25.60<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

p value: 0.01<\/td>\n

CS vs AS: 0.02<\/p>\n

CS vs C: 0.01<\/p>\n

AS vs C: 0.73<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Statistical inference: <\/strong><\/td>\nF value: 22.39<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

p value: 0.01<\/td>\n

No statistic computed<\/td>\nF value: 2.57<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

p value: 0.22<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Post hoc:<\/strong><\/td>\n1 vs 2: 0.41<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.02<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.03<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n1 vs 2: 0.88<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.22<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.35<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

# only 0.2% Chlorhexidine was used as positive control for comparison with different concentrations of plant extracts.<\/p>\n

Alstonia scholaris <\/em>at 10% concentration produced a mean inhibition zone of 23.0\u00b1 2.8mm and 25.5\u00b1 2.1mm against S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus <\/em>respectively which was significantly lower than that produced by 0.2% chlorhexidine (p < 0.05, Table 3).<\/p>\n

Mean inhibition zone of Camellia sinensis <\/em>at 10% concentration against S. mutans <\/em>was significantly higher (37.50\u00b1 3.54 mm) than that produced by 10% Alstonia scholaris (<\/em>23.00\u00b1 2.83 mm). However, the difference in mean inhibition zone between 10% Camellia sinensis <\/em>and 0.2% chlorhexidine was not statistically significant. \u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Antimicrobial efficacy of 4% Camellia sinensis and 10% Alstonia scholaris against S. mutans and L. acidophilus in subsequent experiments conducted in triplicates.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Camellia sinensis<\/em> produced a mean zone of inhibition of 30.3\u00b1 3.3mm, 23.8\u00b1 2.2mm against S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus<\/em> respectively at 4 % concentration which was significantly less than that produced by 0.2% Chlorexidine against these bacteria (34.1\u00b1 2.1mm, 33.7\u00b1 1.7mm (p < 0.05, Table 4). Alstonia scholaris <\/em>produced a mean zone of inhibition of 21.6\u00b1 2.8mm, 24.1\u00b1 1.6mm against S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus<\/em> respectively at 10 % concentration which was significantly less than that produced by 0.2% Chlorexidine against these bacteria \u00a0(24.0\u00b12.3mm, 26.1\u00b1 1.9mm) (p < 0.05, Table 5). Negative control failed to inhibit the growth of these bacteria.<\/p>\n

Table 4: Antimicrobial efficacy of 4% Camellia sinensis<\/em> against S. mutans <\/em>and L. acidophilus.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Bacteria<\/strong><\/td>\nCamellia sinensis<\/em> (Mean\u00b1 SD) (1)<\/strong><\/td>\nPositive control (Mean\u00b1 SD) (2)<\/strong><\/td>\nNegative control (Mean\u00b1 SD) (3)<\/strong><\/td>\nTotal (Mean\u00b1 SD)<\/strong><\/td>\nStatistical inference*<\/strong><\/td>\nPost hoc test#<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Streptococcus mutans<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n30.33\u00b1 3.28<\/td>\n34.11\u00b1 2.15<\/td>\n00<\/td>\n21.48\u00b1 15.71<\/td>\nF value: 614.59<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

P value: 0.00<\/td>\n

1 vs 2: 0.005<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.00<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Lactobacilli acidophilus<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n23.78\u00b1 2.22<\/td>\n33.67\u00b1 1.73<\/td>\n00<\/td>\n19.15\u00b1 14.48<\/td>\nF value: 1017.66<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

P value: 0.00<\/td>\n

1 vs 2: 0.00<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.00<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

*<\/strong>One Way Analysis of Vaiance # tukey\u2019s post hoc<\/p>\n

Table 5: Antimicrobial efficacy of 10% Alstonia scholaris <\/em>against S. mutans <\/em>and L. acidophilus.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nAlstonia scholaris<\/em> (Mean\u00b1 SD)<\/strong><\/td>\nPositive control (Mean\u00b1 SD)<\/strong><\/td>\nNegative control (Mean\u00b1 SD)<\/strong><\/td>\nStatistical inference*<\/strong><\/td>\nPost hoc test#<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Streptococcus mutans<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n21.56\u00b1 2.79<\/td>\n24.00\u00b12.29<\/td>\n00<\/td>\nF value: 361.52<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

P value: 0.00<\/td>\n

1 vs 2: 0.051<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.00<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Lactobacilli acidophilus<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n24.11\u00b1 1.62<\/td>\n26.11\u00b1 1.97<\/td>\n00<\/td>\nF value: 1900.70<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

P value: 0.00<\/td>\n

1 vs 2: 0.021<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.00<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

*<\/strong>One Way Analysis of Vaiance # tukey\u2019s post hoc<\/p>\n

Mean inhibition zone produced by 4% Camellia sinensis<\/em> against S. mutans<\/em> (30.3\u00b1 3.3mm) was significantly higher than that produced by 10% Alstonia scholaris <\/em>(21.6\u00b1 2.8mm) (p < 0.001, Table 6). \u00a0However, the difference in the mean inhibition zone produced by 4% Camellia\u00a0<\/em>sinensis<\/em> against L.acidophilus<\/em> \u00a0(23.8\u00b1 2.2mm) and 10% Alstonia scholaris <\/em>(24.1\u00b1 1.6mm) was not statistically significant (p > 0.05, Table 6).<\/p>\n

Table 6: Comparison of antimicrobial efficacy of 4% Camellia sinensis<\/em> and 10% Alstonia scholaris <\/em>against S. mutans <\/em>and L. acidophilus.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nCamellia sinensis<\/em> (Mean\u00b1 SD)<\/strong><\/td>\nAlstonia scholaris<\/em> (Mean\u00b1 SD)<\/strong><\/td>\nStatistical inference*<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Streptococcus mutans<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n30.33\u00b1 3.28<\/td>\n21.56\u00b1 2.79<\/td>\nt value: 6.118<\/p>\n

df: 16<\/p>\n

P value: 0.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Lactobacilli acidophilus<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n23.78\u00b1 2.22<\/td>\n24.11\u00b1 1.62<\/td>\nt value: -0.364<\/p>\n

df: 52<\/p>\n

P value:0.721<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

*<\/strong> independent sample \u2018t\u2019 test<\/p>\n

Antioxidant activity of Camellia sinensis and Alstonia scholaris in comparison with standard Ascorbic acid.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The mean Inhibition percentage was found to be significant significantly higher for Camellia sinensis<\/em> and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> in comparison with Ascorbic acid at all the levels of concentration (25% 50%, 75%, 100%, 125% and 150%) (p < 0.05, Table 7). \u00a0The mean Inhibition percentage increased with increasing concentrations of plant extracts. Multiple pair wise comparison between different concentrations of each plant extracts demonstrated a significant difference between most of different concentrations (25% 50%, 75%, 100%, 125% and 150%) against DPPH free radical (p\u20390.05) except Alstonia scholaris <\/em>at 100% Vs 125% (p = 0.13, Table 7).<\/p>\n

Table 7: Details of antioxidant capacity of Ascorbic acid (standard), 4% Camellia sinensis<\/em> and 10% Alstonia scholaris<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Concentration<\/strong><\/td>\nAscorbic acid<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mean% inhibition \u00b1 SD (1)<\/strong><\/td>\n

Camellia sinensis<\/em> Mean% inhibition \u00b1 SD (2)<\/strong><\/td>\nAlstonia scholaris <\/em>Mean% inhibition \u00b1 SD (3)<\/strong><\/td>\nStatistical inference*<\/strong><\/td>\nPost hoc test#<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25%<\/td>\n3.47\u00b1 0.76<\/td>\n17.00\u00b1 2.00<\/td>\n14.33\u00b1 4.04<\/td>\nF value: 22.11<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

P value: 0.002<\/td>\n

1 vs 2: 0.002<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.006<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.48<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

50%<\/td>\n10.21\u00b1 0.26<\/td>\n29.00\u00b1 1.00<\/td>\n35.76\u00b1 0.88<\/td>\nF value: 853.12<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

P value: 0.00<\/td>\n

1 vs 2: 0.00<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.00<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

75%<\/td>\n17.41\u00b1 0.52<\/td>\n41.22\u00b1 1.55<\/td>\n46.86\u00b1 1.22<\/td>\nF value: 528.73<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

P value:0.00<\/td>\n

1 vs 2: 0.00<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.00<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.003<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

100%<\/td>\n20.25\u00b1 0.27<\/td>\n60.67\u00b1 2.52<\/td>\n70.39\u00b1 1.96<\/td>\nF value: 621.01<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

P value: 0.00<\/td>\n

1 vs 2: 0.00<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.00<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

125%<\/td>\n28.17\u00b1 0.14<\/td>\n71.33\u00b1 1.53<\/td>\n75.28\u00b1 2.11<\/td>\nF value: 903.67<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

P value: 0.00<\/td>\n

1 vs 2: 0.00<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.00<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.042<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

150%<\/td>\n31.53\u00b1 0.18<\/td>\n89.66\u00b1 0.57<\/td>\n90.33\u00b1 1.15<\/td>\nF value: 6108.66<\/p>\n

df: 2<\/p>\n

P value: 0.00<\/td>\n

1 vs 2: 0.00<\/p>\n

1vs 3: 0.00<\/p>\n

2 vs 3: 0.550<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Total<\/td>\n18.50\u00b1 9.97<\/td>\n51.48\u00b1 25.71<\/td>\n55.49\u00b1 26.58<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Statistical inference*<\/td>\nF value: 1920.24<\/p>\n

df: 5<\/p>\n

P value:0.00<\/td>\n

F value: 820.77<\/p>\n

df: 5<\/p>\n

P value: 0.00<\/td>\n

F value: 508.43<\/p>\n

df: 5<\/p>\n

P value: 0.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Post hoc test<\/td>\n25% vs 50%: 0.00<\/p>\n

25% vs 75%: 0.00<\/p>\n

25% vs 100%: 0.00<\/p>\n

25% vs 125%: 0.00<\/p>\n

25% vs 150%: 0.00<\/p>\n

50% vs 75%: 0.00<\/p>\n

50% vs 100%: 0.00<\/p>\n

50% vs 125%: 0.00<\/p>\n

50% vs 150%: 0.00<\/p>\n

75% vs 100%: 0.00<\/p>\n

75% vs 125%: 0.00<\/p>\n

75% vs 150%: 0.00<\/p>\n

100% vs 125%: 0.00<\/p>\n

100% vs 150%: 0.00<\/p>\n

125% vs 150%: 0.00<\/td>\n

\u00a025% vs 50%: 0.00<\/p>\n

25% vs 75%: 0.00<\/p>\n

25% vs 100%: 0.00<\/p>\n

25% vs 125%: 0.00<\/p>\n

25% vs 150%: 0.00<\/p>\n

50% vs 75%: 0.00<\/p>\n

50% vs 100%: 0.00<\/p>\n

50% vs 125%: 0.00<\/p>\n

50% vs 150%: 0.00<\/p>\n

75% vs 100%: 0.00<\/p>\n

75% vs 125%: 0.00<\/p>\n

75% vs 150%: 0.00<\/p>\n

100% vs 125%: 0.00<\/p>\n

100% vs 150%: 0.00<\/p>\n

125% vs 150%: 0.00<\/td>\n

25% vs 50%: 0.00<\/p>\n

25% vs 75%: 0.00<\/p>\n

25% vs 100%: 0.00<\/p>\n

25% vs 125%: 0.00<\/p>\n

25% vs 150%: 0.00<\/p>\n

50% vs 75%: 0.00<\/p>\n

50% vs 100%: 0.00<\/p>\n

50% vs 125%: 0.00<\/p>\n

50% vs 150%: 0.00<\/p>\n

75% vs 100%: 0.00<\/p>\n

75% vs 125%: 0.00<\/p>\n

75% vs 150%: 0.00<\/p>\n

100% vs 125%: 0.13<\/p>\n

100% vs 150%: 0.00<\/p>\n

125% vs 150%: 0.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

*One- Way Analysis of Variance # tukey\u2019s post hoc<\/p>\n

Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dental caries is demonstrating an upward trend in India and other developing countries. Treatment of dental caries is quite expensive and not a realistic option for developing countries such as India. Although, chlorhexidine is considered as a gold standard in preventing dental plaque formation, it causes some minor side effects on long term use like discoloration of teeth, taste alteration, oral\/ mucosal ulceration and parotid swelling. 1, 2, 5\u00a0<\/sup>The need to evolve innovative strategies to prevent dental caries has resulted in multiple studies which have evaluated the antimicrobial efficacy of plant extracts on dental caries microorganisms in the recent past.\u00a018-21<\/sup><\/p>\n

Camellia sinensis<\/em> and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> plants were known for their medicinal properties since centuries.(10)<\/sup> Lack of sufficient literature evaluating antimicrobial efficacy of these plant extracts on dental caries bacteria led us to undertake this in vitro<\/em> study which assessed anti oxidant and antimicrobial activity of Camellia sinensis<\/em> and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> extracts on Streptococcus mutans<\/em> and Lactobacillus<\/em> acidophilus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Camellia sinensis <\/em>did not demonstrate any inhibitory activity against S. mutans <\/em>and L. acidophilus<\/em> at initial concentration (1%, 2% and 3%). Alstonia scholaris<\/em> did not demonstrate any inhibiotry activity against S. mutans <\/em>and L. acidophilus<\/em> at initial concentration of 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% and 6%. This may be due to lack of sufficient concentration of phytochemical constituents in plant extracts for inhibiting the bacteria. Based on these results, MIC of Camellia sinensis and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> against S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus <\/em>was considered to be 4% and 10% respectively. Inhibitory activity of Camellia sinensis <\/em>is attributed to the presence of various phytochemicals. It has been reported in the literature that Camellia sinensis <\/em>has the potential to inhibit dextran and levan produced from sucrose by acting upon S. mutans<\/em>.\u00a07<\/sup>\u00a0It has been found to even interfere with the process of bacterial attachment to tooth enamel.\u00a011<\/sup>\u00a0Plant is said to contain anti- microbial and anti- oxidant activity due to the presence of polyphenols and catechins.10<\/sup>\u00a0Similarly, some studies have reported anti- microbial, phyto chemical and antioxidative property of different parts viz. leaves flowers, bark, root and latex of Alstonia scholaris<\/em>.\u00a015, 16, 22, 23<\/sup>\u00a0The available literature over assessment of anti- microbial activity of Alstonia scholaris<\/em> against S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus<\/em> is limited. Araghizadeh A et al<\/em> assessed the antimicrobial activity of Camellia sinensis<\/em> against S. mutans<\/em> at a concentration starting from 1.56mg\/ ml to 50 mg\/ml. There was no inhibition of bacteria at a concentration of 1.56mg\/ ml. However, a mean zone of inhibition of 7.5\u00b12.76 mm was formed at a concentration of 3.12 mg\/ml which increased to 36.3\u00b11.08 mm at a concentration of 50mg\/ ml.5\u00a0<\/sup>A review study by Reygaert W C reported that MIC of Camellia sinensis<\/em> against S. mutans<\/em> to vary from 2.58- 3.98 mg\/ ml.24<\/sup><\/p>\n

The mean zone of inhibition for S. mutans <\/em>increased with increasing concentration of Camellia sinensis<\/em>. On the other hand, the mean zone of inhibition for L. acidophilus <\/em>decreased with increasing concentration of Camellia sinensis<\/em>. This can be due to fact that higher concentration of the extract could have led to extract oversaturation which might have adversely influenced antimicrobial action against L. acidophilus<\/em>.\u00a025, 26, 27, 28<\/sup><\/p>\n

Anita P et al<\/em> to assessed anti- microbial efficacy of Camellia sinensis<\/em> against S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus.<\/em> Study reported significant increase in mean zone of inhibition on increasing concentration of Camellia sinensis<\/em> against S. mutans<\/em> from 10.00 \u00b1 0.01mm at 100 \u00b5g concentration to 12.66 \u00b1 0.58mm at 200\u00b5g and finally 18.33\u00b1 0.58mm at 300\u00b5g concentration. They found a statistically significant increase in mean zone of inhibition with increasing concentration of Camellia sinensis<\/em> against L. acidophilus<\/em> from 8.33\u00b1 0.58mm at 100\u00b5g concentration to 10.00\u00b1 0.01mm at 200\u00b5g concentration and finally 12.67\u00b1 0.58mm at 300\u00b5g concentration.(2) <\/sup>These results were similar to the results of present study with regard to S. mutans<\/em> while contradictory with respect to L. acidophilus<\/em>. Tahir A and Moeen R also found anti- microbial efficacy of Camellia sinensis<\/em> against S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus<\/em> to increase with increasing concentration. (11)<\/sup> Khan M R et al<\/em> reported Alstonia scholaris<\/em> to inhibit the growth of \u00a0S. mutans similar to the results of our study<\/em>. (12) <\/sup>Although, literature indicating \u00a0antibacterial activity of Alstonia scholaris<\/em> against gram positive and gram negative bacteria are available,(19, 25, 26)<\/sup> studies reporting antimicrobial activity of Alstonia scholaris<\/em> against S. mutans <\/em>and L. acidophilus<\/em> are practically non-existent. Hence, We could not compare the results with other studies.<\/p>\n

The subsequent experiment in triplicate sets was undertaken with 4% Camellia sinensis and 10% Alstonia scholaris<\/em> with 0.2% Chlorhexidine as positive control to confirm our findings of initial experiment. 0.2% Chlorhexidine (34.11\u00b1 2.15mm, 33.67\u00b1 1.73mm) produced a significantly higher mean zone of inhibition against S. mutans<\/em> and L.acidophilus <\/em>compared to 4% Camellia sinensis <\/em>(30.33\u00b1 3.28mm, 23.78\u00b1 2.22mm).<\/p>\n

Anita P et al<\/em>. reported 0.2% Chlorhexidine to exhibit a higher mean zone of inhibition against S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus<\/em> in comparison with Camellia sinensis<\/em> at 300\u00b5g concentration.(2)<\/sup> our findings were similar to the results of this study and others.\u00a0\u00a01,2, 6<\/sup><\/p>\n

Chlorhexidine is considered the gold standard antiplaque agent and it was found in our study as well that it has the potential to inhibit these microorganisms. However, in view of its side effects on long term use, mouth rinses made of these extracts could be considered as potential alternates with further research. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Camellia sinensis<\/em> at 4% demonstrated higher mean zone of inhibition against S. mutans <\/em>than against L. acidophilus<\/em> similar to the findings of a study by Tahir A and Moeen R<\/em> who found Camellia sinensis<\/em> at concentrations of 5000, 10000, 15000 and 20000 mg\/ml to have greater mean zone of inhibition against S. mutans<\/em> (19, 24, 34 and 35 mm ) than against L. <\/em>acidophilus (15, 20, 29 and 33mm).\u00a011<\/sup>\u00a0This finding was also similar to study conducted by Anita P et al<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a02<\/sup><\/p>\n

Alstonia scholaris<\/em> at 10% demonstrated a higher mean zone of inhibition against L. acidophilus<\/em> than S. mutans. <\/em>Although, the extract was found to be very effective against L. acidophilus, <\/em>we could not compare this finding vowing to non-availability of studies on the efficacy of this extract on dental caries bacteria.<\/p>\n

Mean inhibition percentage of DPPH radical increased with increasing concentration of Ascorbic acid, Camellia sinensis <\/em>and Alstonia scholaris.<\/em> The increase in mean inhibition percentage was found to be significant for all three samples. However, Alstonia scholaris<\/em> showed a significant high inhibition percentage than standard Ascorbic acid and Camellia sinensis<\/em> at all concentrations except at 25% where Camellia sinensis<\/em> showed a higher mean inhibition percentage. Higher mean inhibition percentage indicated high antioxidant activity. This illustrates that Camellia sinensis <\/em>and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> have enough potent antioxidant activity to scavenge free radicals. Various studies have reported antioxidant and antibacterial property of Alstonia scholaris<\/em>. (15, 16, 25, 26)<\/sup> Similar results were reported by James J et al<\/em>, Ramachandra Y L et al <\/em>and Jain D P et al<\/em>. (18, 27, 28)<\/sup> Ramachandra Y et al<\/em> found an increase in mean inhibition percentage from 26.37% to 72.82% with increase in Alstonia scholaris<\/em> concentration of 200\u00b5g\/ml to 1000 \u00b5g\/ml. (18)<\/sup> Jain D P et al<\/em> reported a significant increase in inhibition percentage of DPPH radical from 10.82 \u00b1 2.2 to 81.13 \u00b1 2.6 with increase in concentration of Camellia sinensis<\/em> from 10 mg\/ ml to 180 mg\/ ml.(27) <\/sup>Our results were similar to the results of all these studies.<\/p>\n

Novelty<\/strong><\/p>\n

The study evaluated the MIC, antibacterial activity of two potential plant extracts against two most disease causing pathogens in oral environment besides evaluating their anti-oxidant capacity. Evaluation of antimicrobial activity of Alstonia scholaris <\/em>against Streptococcus mutans<\/em> and Lactobacilli<\/em> acidophilus <\/em>was the first of its kind study.<\/p>\n

Limitation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Phytochemical constituents of plant extracts vary depending upon their geographical location, brewing time, fermentation, etc. A qualitative and quantitative assay of phytochemical constituents could have validated the results of this study which could not be undertaken. We assessed antimicrobial activity of these extracts against Streptococcus mutans<\/em> and Lactobacilli<\/em> acidophilus<\/em> while oral cavity has other pathogenic microorganisms as well.<\/p>\n

Hence, more such researches can be performed to confirm anti- oxidant and anti- microbial property of Camellia sinensis<\/em> and Alstonia scholaris <\/em>against other oral bacteria.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

MIC of Camellia sinensis <\/em>on S. mutans and L. acidophilus was 4%. <\/em><\/p>\n

MIC of Alstonia scholaris<\/em> on S. mutans and L. acidophilus was 10%. <\/em><\/p>\n

The plant extracts were significant effective against bacteria, S. mutans<\/em> and L. acidophilus<\/em>. Camellia sinensis<\/em> produced a mean inhibition zone of 30.33\u00b1 3.28 against S. mutans<\/em> and 23.78\u00b1 2.22 against L. acidophilus<\/em>. Alstonia scholaris<\/em> produced a mean inhibition zone of 21.56\u00b1 2.79 against S. mutans<\/em> and 24.11\u00b1 1.62 against L. acidophilus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Mean zone of inhibition of both the bacteria namely S. mutans<\/em> & L. acidophilus<\/em> and inhibition percentage of DPPH radical significantly increases with increase in concentration of plant extracts, Camellia sinensis <\/em>and Alstonia scholaris\u00a0<\/em>Both the plant extract Camellia sinensis <\/em>and Alstonia scholaris<\/em> contains effective anti oxidative and anti- microbial activity.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Subramaniam P, Eswara U, Maheshwar Reddy K R<\/em>. Effect of different types of tea on Streptococcus mutans<\/em>: an in vitro<\/em> Ind J Dent Res 2012; 23 (1): 43-8.
    \nCrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. Anita P, Sivasamy S, Madan Kumar P D, Balan I N, Ethiraj S.<\/em> In vitro<\/em> antibacterial activity of Camellia sinensis<\/em> extract against cariogenic microorganisms. J Basic Clin Pharma 2015; 6 (1):35-9.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Grover H S, Deswal H, Hans V M, Devi L S.<\/em> Effect of concentration and brewing time on the antimicrobial activity of Camellia sinensis<\/em> (green tea) against oral bacteria. Saudi J Oral Sci 2017; 4 (1):18-21.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  4. Sakanaka S, Kim M, Taniguchi M, Yamamoto T.<\/em> Antibacterial substances in japanese green tea extract against Streptococcus mutans<\/em>, a cariogenic bacterium. Agric Biol Chem 1989; 53 (9): 2307-2311.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. Araghizadeh A, Kohanteb J, Fani M M.<\/em> Inhibitory activity of green tea (Camellia sinensis<\/em>) extract on some clinically isolated cariogenic and periodontopathic bacteria. Med Princ Pract 2013; 22: 368\u2013372.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  6. Wang Y F, Shao S H, Xu P, Yang X Q, Qian L S.<\/em> Catechin-enriched green tea extract as a safe and effective agent for antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory treatment. Afr J Pharm Pharmacol; 5(12): 1452-1461.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  7. Jenabian N, Moghadamnia A A, Karami E, Mir A B P.<\/em> The effect of Camellia sinensis<\/em> (green tea) mouthwash on plaque-induced gingivitis: a single-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial. DARU J Pharmaceutical Sciences 2012; 20(39): 1-6.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  8. Hirasawa M, Takada K.<\/em> Multiple effects of green tea catechin<\/em> on the antifungal activity of antimycotics against Candida albican<\/em>. J Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2004; 53 (2): 225\u2013229.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  9. Tsao A S, Liu D, Martin J, Tang X, Lee J J, El-Naggar A K et al.<\/em> Phase II randomized, placebo-controlled trial of green tea extract in patients with high-risk oral premalignant lesions. Cancer Prev Res 2009; 2(11): 931-941.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  10. Archana S, Abraham J.<\/em> Comparative analysis of antimicrobial activity of leaf extracts from fresh green tea, commercial green tea and black tea on pathogens. J Applied Pharmaceutical Science 2011; 01 (08): 149-152.<\/li>\n
  11. Tahir A, Moeen R.<\/em> Comparison of antibacterial activity of water and ethanol extracts of Camellia sinensis<\/em> (L.) kuntze<\/em> against dental caries and detection of antibacterial components. J Med Plant Res 2011; 5(18): 4504-4510.<\/li>\n
  12. Khan M R, Omoloso A D, Kihara M<\/em>. Antibacterial activity of Alstonia scholaris<\/em> and Leea tetramer<\/em>. Fitoterapia 2003; 74: 736\u2013740.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  13. Misra C S, Pratyush K, Dev M.S L, James J, Veettil A K T, Thankamani V.<\/em> A comparative study on phytochemical screening and antibacterial activity of roots of Alstonia scholaris<\/em> with the roots leaves and stem bark. Int. J. Res. Phytochem. Pharmacol. 2011; 1(2): 77-82.<\/li>\n
  14. Varshney A, Goyal M<\/em> Phytochemical study on the leaves of Alstonia Scholaris<\/em> and their effects on pathogenic organisms. Ancient Science of Life July 1995; 15 (1): 30-34.<\/li>\n
  15. Ganjewala D, Gupta A K.<\/em> Study on phytochemical composition, antibacterial and antioxidant properties of different parts of Alstonia scholaris Linn.<\/em> Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin 2013; 3(2): 379-384.<\/li>\n
  16. Khyade M S, Kasote D M, Vaikos N P.<\/em> Alstoniascholaris (L.) R.Br.<\/em> and Alstoniamacrophylla Wall.exG.Don<\/em>: A comparative review on traditional uses, phytochemistry and pharmacology. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 2014; 153: 1\u201318
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  17. Caufield P W, Sch\u00f6n C N, Saraithong P, Li Y, Argim\u00f3n S. <\/em>Oral lactobacilli<\/em> and dental caries: a model for niche adaptation in humans. JDR Clinical Research Supplement Sept 2015 ;94 (9) :2
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  18. Chandrashekar BR, Nagarajappa R, Suma S, Thakur R. Herbal extracts in oral health care \u2013 A review on the current scenario and the need for future \u2013 Pharmacognosy reviews 2015; 9 (18): 87 \u2013 92.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  19. Chandra shekar BR, Nagarajappa R, Jain R, Suma S, Singh R, Thakur R. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration of the plant extract combinations against dental caries and plaque microorganisms \u2013 An in vitro<\/em> study. Journal of Indian Association of Public Health Dentistry 2016; 14: 456 \u2013 62.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  20. Chandra shekar BR, Nagarajappa R, Singh R, Suma S, Thakur R. Antimicrobial efficacy of the combinations ofAcacia nilotica,<\/em>\u00a0Murraya<\/em>\u00a0koenigii<\/em>\u00a0(Linn.)\u00a0Sprengel<\/em>,\u00a0Eucalyptus,<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Psidium<\/em>\u00a0guajava<\/em>\u00a0on primary plaque colonizers: An\u00a0in vitro<\/em>\u00a0 Indian Journal of Dental Research 2016; 27: 415 \u2013 20.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  21. Chandra shekar BR, Nagarajappa R, Jain R, Singh R, Thakur R, Suma S. Antimicrobial efficacy of Acacia nilotica, Murraya koenigii (L.) Sprengel, Eucalyptus <\/em>hybrid, Psidium guajava <\/em>extracts and their combination on Streptococcus mutans<\/em> and Lactobacillus acidophilus. <\/em>Dental Research Journal 2016; 13 (2): 168 \u2013 73.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  22. Ramachandra Y L, AshajyothI C, Padmalatha RAI S. Antioxidant activity of Alstonia Scholarsis <\/em>extracts containing flavonoid and phenolic compounds. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2012; 4 (3): 424-426.<\/li>\n
  23. Varshney A, Goyal M M. Phytochemical study on the leaves of Alstonia Scholaris <\/em>and their effects on pathogenic organisms. Ancient Science Life 1995; 15 (1): 30- 34.<\/li>\n
  24. Reygaert W C. The Antimicrobial possibilities of green tea. Frontier Microbiolog 2014; 5 (434): 1- 8.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  25. Yourassowsky E, Vanderlinden M P, Lismont M J, Schoutens E. Paradoxical action of penicillin g on staphylococcus aureus: a time study of the effect of a zonal antibiotic concentration gradient on bacterial growth. Antimicrob Agent Chemotherap Sept. 1975; 8 (3): 262-265.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  26. Miyazaki S et al. In- vitro activities of eleven antibiotics against vancomycin resistant enterococci isolated in Japan. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44: 415- 416.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  27. Prasetyoputri A, Jarrad M A, Cooper M A, Blaskovich M A T. The Eagle Effect and Antibiotic-Induced Persistence: Two Sides of the Same Coin?. Trends microbiology 2018; 1-16.<\/li>\n
  28. Tsuji BT, Landersdorfer CB, Lenhard JR, Cheah S-E, Thamlikitkul V, Rao GG, Holden PN, Forrest A, Bulitta JB, Nation RL, Li J. Paradoxical effect of polymyxin B: high drug exposure amplifies resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii<\/em>. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60 (7):3913\u20133920.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  29. Patel J P, Gami B, Patel K, Solanki R. Antibacterial activity of methanolic and acetone extract of some medicinal plants used in indian folklore. Int J Phytomedicine 2011; 3: 261-269.<\/li>\n
  30. Khyade M S, Vaikos N P. Phytochemical and antibacterial properties of leaves of Alstonia scholaris <\/em> Br. Afr J Biotechnol 2009; 8 (22): 6434-6436.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  31. James J et al. In vitro antioxidant activity of flowers and fruits of Alstonia scholaris<\/em>. Int J Phytomedicine 2011; 3: 475-479.<\/li>\n
  32. Jain DP, Pancholi SS, Patel R. Synergistic antioxidant activity of green tea with some herbs. J Adv Pharm Tech Res 2011; 2: 177-83.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction Initially originated from China, tea has ruled heart of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[88],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol14no1"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38078","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38078"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38078\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40059,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38078\/revisions\/40059"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}