{"id":49650,"date":"2023-06-30T10:52:39","date_gmt":"2023-06-30T10:52:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=49650"},"modified":"2023-07-11T06:22:20","modified_gmt":"2023-07-11T06:22:20","slug":"antimicrobial-efficiency-of-different-forms-of-tea-extract-camellia-sinensis-against-cariogenic-pathogens","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol16no2\/antimicrobial-efficiency-of-different-forms-of-tea-extract-camellia-sinensis-against-cariogenic-pathogens\/","title":{"rendered":"Antimicrobial Efficiency of Different forms of Tea extract (Camellia sinensis) against Cariogenic Pathogens"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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

Dental\ncaries is one of the most severe infectious conditions of the oral cavity,\ncaused by the interaction of teeth, dietary variables, and oral flora. Streptococcus\nmutans<\/em> and Lactobacillus acidophilus<\/em> are believed to be the main\netiological agents,1 <\/sup>as they metabolise sucrose to promote plaque\nbiofilm development and adherence. Furthermore, in dental plaque, dietary\ncarbohydrates breakdown occurs by the bacteria into lactic acid, which causes\nlocalised demineralisation and subsequently develops dental caries.2<\/sup>\nDespite flossing and brushing being plaque-control procedures that aid in\nlimiting the spread of oral microorganisms, it is still difficult to remove\nplaque from the oral cavity\u2019s isolated areas. As a result, the antimicrobial\nagent’s application is justified to restrict the growth of cariogenic microbes\nand prevent dental caries. Some antimicrobial drugs, such as chlorhexidine,\nfluoride-based solutions, cetyl pyridinium chloride, and triclosan, have been\ninvestigated against oral microorganisms.1,3<\/sup> The most popular chemical\nagent of preference for controlling plaque is chlorhexidine. It can function long\nafter application due to its capacity to bond with hard and soft tissues in the\nmouth. However, long-term chlorhexidine use has been linked to adverse effects,\nincluding brown staining of teeth and restorative materials, taste\nmodification, enhanced supragingival calculus maturation, ulceration of oral mucosa,\nand parotid enlargement.4<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although\nmany antibacterial medicines have been suggested for preventing dental caries,\nthey result in the death of healthy or normal oral flora. It subsequently\ncauses abnormal variations in the oral environment, leading to the development\nof resistant organisms and secondary infections.5<\/sup> Plants have been\nused as a medicine source since ancient times. Due to their low frequency of\nsignificant side effects, reported effectiveness, and inexpensive cost, herbal\nmedicines from various plant components are gaining popularity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the WHO, 80% of people worldwide still use conventional\nmedicine. Among them tea is one of the most popular medicinal herbs and the\nsecond-most-drank beverage in the world. It also has significant cultural and\neconomic values in many different nations.6<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tea\nleaves can be processed into three different types of tea: unfermented green\ntea, semi-fermented oolong tea, and fermented black tea.7<\/sup> 20% of\ngreen tea, less than 2% of oolong tea, and 78% of black tea are produced and\nused worldwide, and the remaining tea varieties are less common.8<\/sup>\nAlthough black tea is mainly considered in Western nations and oolong tea is\nwell-known in the Chinese province of Fujian, green tea is more prevalent among\nAsians.9<\/sup> These teas’ anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, antioxidant,\nthermogenic, and anticarcinogenic qualities are well documented. Furthermore, due\nto their potential as antioxidants, they have been shown to lower obesity,\ncancer, and the risk of coronary heart disease.10,11<\/sup> Considering\ntheir effectiveness, the present study was designed to assess the antibacterial\nactivity of various types of tea extract against cariogenic microorganisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The current in vitro experimental investigation was\nconducted at the Faculty of Dentistry, SEGi University. It is part of an\ninternally funded collaboration with Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia\n(SEGiEC\/StR\/FOD\/41\/2021-2022). The G Power software has been employed for\ncalculating the sample size. Using a 95% confidence interval and a study power of\n80%, the sample size was calculated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preparation and culturing of microorganisms<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bacterial strains of Streptococcus mutans<\/em>\n20523, and Lactobacillus acidophilus<\/em> DSM was purchased from DSMZ\n(Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen, Braunschweig,\nGermany). S. mutans<\/em> was subcultured on Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) agar\nand L. acidophilus<\/em> on De Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe (MRS) agar, and\nincubation was done for 24 hours at 37o<\/sup>c. Before the experiment,\nthree to five colonies from an overnight culture were suspended in saline\n(0.85% sodium chloride) and adjusted to match the turbidity of a McFarland\n0.5 standard. This standard bacterial suspension was further used for the\ndisc diffusion assay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preparation of tea extracts with different concentrations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the experiment, four different types of tea were obtained from organic tea stores in Malaysia. Group 1: Japanese green tea from Shizuoka, Japan; Group 2: Oolong Chinese tea from Taiwan (SNC Teatime Sdn. Bhd.); and Group 3: Sabah black tea from Malaysia (Desa Tea Sdn. Bhd.). Three different concentrations of individual tea types were prepared for the experiment. Concentration:1\u2013250 mg\/ml aqueous solution, Concentration:2\u2013250 mg\/ml ethanolic solution, and Concentration:3\u2013250 mg\/ml with an aqueous sugar solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aqueous\nextracts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tea\nextracts were prepared by adding 20g of tea powder to 200 ml of boiled\ndistilled water. The mixture was allowed to brew for ten minutes. The solution\nwas then filtered through sterile Whatman No. 1 filter paper to get its\nextract. The infusion was concentrated to a fifth of the volume on a rotary\nevaporator, frozen, and lyophilised. The lyophilised infusion was redissolved\nin water to obtain a stock solution of 250 mg\/ml of aqueous extracts. For\nextract with sugar, 5.5% (weight\/volume) sugar was added during the brewing\nstage to obtain 250 mg\/ml of aqueous with sugar extracts.12<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Ethanolic extracts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

20g\nof tea powder was soaked in 200 ml of ethanol (95%). The mixtures were then\nstored at room temperature for 24 hours in a securely sealed conical flask,\nshielded from sunlight. The mixtures were carefully stirred with sterile glass\nrods multiple times each day. The resulting mixes were run through Whatman No.\n1 filter sheets for filtration to remove the ethanol, the extracted liquids\nwere subjected to rotational evaporation. 13<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nresulting semisolid extracts were freeze-dried for 24 hours at \u221260\u00b0C after\nbeing maintained overnight at \u221280\u00b0C in the freezer. Then, until further usage,\nthe extracts were kept in a refrigerator at 4\u00b0C in an airtight container.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Disc\ndiffusion method<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Kirby-Bauer disc\ndiffusion method was used to determine the antibacterial activity of tea\nextracts.14<\/sup> The tea extracts were\nredissolved in 1% DMSO to obtain a 250 mg\/ml concentration and sterilised\nthrough a Millipore filter (0.22 \u00b5m). Blank antimicrobial susceptibility discs\n(Oxoid \u2122) 6 mm in diameter were used to load the 20 \u00b5l of tea extracts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The standard drug, 0.12%\nchlorhexidine (CHX), was used as a positive control. A negative control with a\ndisc of 1% DMSO was used. The standard bacterial suspension (0.5 McFarland) was\napplied evenly to the surface of their respective agars using a sterile cotton\nswab soaked in the suspension. After that, the discs loaded with various\nconcentrations of tea extracts with positive and negative controls were placed\non the surface of the agar plate. The incubation of plates was done for 24\nhours at 37o<\/sup>c. Following\nincubation, a digital calliper determined the zone of inhibition’s diameter in\nmillimetres.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Statistical\nPackage for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows, Version 22.0, was released in\n2013 to perform statistical analyses. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. was used. The\ndescriptive analysis includes the Zone of Inhibition (ZOI) expression in mm for\ndifferent organisms in terms of mean and standard deviation for each group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To\ncompare the mean zone of inhibition between S. mutans<\/em> and L.\nacidophilus<\/em> in different concentrations of each group, a student-paired\nt-test was used. The level of significance was set at P<0.05.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The\nmean ZOI in 250 mg\/ml of aqueous solution for S. mutans<\/em> in Group 1 was\nsignificantly higher [18.33 \u00b1 0.12] as compared to L. acidophilus<\/em> [9.41\n\u00b1 0.15], and a significant difference was seen at p<0.001. Likewise, the\nmean ZOI for S. mutans<\/em> in Group 2 was significantly higher [16.44 \u00b1\n0.32] as compared to L. acidophilus<\/em> [9.40 \u00b1 0.21] and was statistically\nsignificant at p<0.001. Lastly, the mean ZOI for S. Mutans<\/em> in Group 3\nwas significantly higher [13.26 \u00b1 0.11] as compared to L. acidophilus<\/em>\n[10.26 \u00b1 0.13] and showed a significant difference at p<0.001 (Table.1,\ngraph 1, and figures 1 and 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\n250 mg\/ml of ethanolic solution for S. mutans<\/em>, the mean ZOI in Group 1\nwas significantly higher [27.50 \u00b1 0.07] as compared to L. acidophilus<\/em>\n[14.93 \u00b1 0.22], and the difference was significant at p<0.001.\nSimilarly, the mean ZOI for S. mutans<\/em> in Group 2 was significantly\nhigher [27.34 \u00b1 0.15] as compared to L. acidophilus<\/em> [16.41 \u00b1 0.15], and\nthe difference was statistically significant at p<0.001. Whereas the mean\nZOI for S. mutans<\/em> in Group 3 was significantly higher [26.70 \u00b1 0.15] as\ncompared to L. acidophilus<\/em> [14.94 \u00b1 0.13], a statistically\nsignificant difference was seen at p<0.001 (Table.2, graph 2, and figures 1\nand 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mean ZOI in 250 mg\/ml of sugar solution for S. mutans<\/em> in Group 1 was significantly higher [18.56 \u00b1 0.24] as compared to L. acidophilus<\/em> [10.09 \u00b1 0.36], and the significant difference was at p<0.001. Similarly, the mean ZOI for S. mutans<\/em> in Group 2 was significantly higher [18.96 \u00b1 0.28] as compared to L. acidophilus<\/em> [9.49 \u00b1 0.08] and showed a significant difference at p<0.001. Lastly, the mean ZOI for S. mutans<\/em> in Group 3 was significantly higher [12.37 \u00b1 0.07] as compared to L. acidophilus<\/em> [10.32 \u00b1 0.16] and showed a statistically significant difference at p<0.001 (Table 3, Graph 3, and Figures 1 and 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1: Comparison of mean ZOI in 250 mg\/ml of aqueous solution b\/w L. acidophilus <\/em>and S. mutans<\/em> in each group using Student Paired t Test<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Groups<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Organism<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SD<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean Diff<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

p-value<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Group 1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

L. <\/em>acidophilus<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-8.92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.001*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

S. mutans<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18.33<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Group 2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

L. <\/em>acidophilus<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-7.04<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.001*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

S. mutans<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16.44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Group 3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

L. <\/em>acidophilus<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10.26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-3.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.001*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

S. mutans<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Table 2: Comparison of mean ZOI in 250 mg\/ml of Ethanolic solution b\/w L. acidophilus <\/em>and S. mutans<\/em> in each group using Student Paired t Test<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Groups<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Organism<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SD<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean Diff<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

p-value<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Group 1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

L. <\/em>acidophilus<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14.93<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-12.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.001*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

S. mutans<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27.50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.07<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Group 2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

L. <\/em>acidophilus<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16.41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-10.93<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.001*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

S. mutans<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27.34<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Group 3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

L. <\/em>acidophilus<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14.94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-11.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.001*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

S. mutans<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26.70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Table 3: Comparison of mean ZOI in 250 mg\/ml of Sugar solution b\/w L. acidophilus <\/em>and S. mutans<\/em> in each group using Student Paired t Test<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Groups<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Organism<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SD<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean Diff<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

p-value<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Group 1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

L. <\/em>acidophilus<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10.09<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-8.47<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.001*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

S. mutans<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18.56<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.24<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Group 2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

L. <\/em>acidophilus<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.49<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.08<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-9.47<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.001*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

S. mutans<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18.96<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Group 3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

L. <\/em>acidophilus<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10.32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-2.05<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<0.001*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

S. mutans<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12.37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.07<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Note:  * – Statistically Significant <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Group 1 \u2013 Japanese green Tea, Group 2\n\u2013Chinese Oolong Tea & Group 3 \u2013Sabah Black Tea<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Graph 1:<\/strong> Mean ZOI in 250mg\/ml of Aqueous solution between L. acidophilus <\/em>and S. mutans<\/em> in each group.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Graph<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Graph 2:<\/strong> Mean ZOI in 250 mg\/ml of ethanolic solution between L. acidophilus <\/em>and S. mutans<\/em> in each group.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Graph<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Graph 3: <\/strong>Mean ZOI in 250ml of sugar solution between L. acidophilus <\/em>and S. mutans<\/em> in each group.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Graph<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 1: (a, b, and c). The antibacterial activity of Japanese green tea, Chinese oolong tea and Malaysian Sabah black tea against Streptococcus mutans<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 2: (a, b, and c). The antibacterial activity of Japanese green tea, Chinese oolong tea and Malaysian Sabah black tea against L. acidophilus<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

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

The antimicrobial activity of S. mutans<\/em> and L.<\/em>\nacidophilus <\/em>was\ninvestigated in the current study.\nRegardless of the diversity of oral microflora, there is strong evidence that\nthese two organisms are the main causative agents in the pathogenesis of dental\ncaries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\npresent study compared the effectiveness of aqueous, ethanol, and aqueous sugar\nextracts of green tea, oolong tea, and black tea on S. mutans<\/em> and L.\nacidophilus<\/em>. Aqueous extract of green tea showed a better zone of\ninhibition of 18.33 mm for S. mutans<\/em> compared to oolong (16.44mm) and\nblack tea (13.26 mm) than against L. acidophilus<\/em>. This contrasts with a\nstudy in which an aqueous oolong tea extract showed better inhibition against S.\nmutans<\/em> than chlorhexidine.15 <\/sup>This might be because oolong tea\ncontains more phytochemicals than green and black tea. Similar results were\nfound in the study in which both aqueous and ethanolic oolong tea extracts\nexhibited higher inhibitory effects than black and green tea.7<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nthe present study, the meanzone of inhibition withan ethanolic\nsolution of green tea for S. mutans<\/em> was significantly higher (27.50mm)\nas compared to L. acidophilus <\/em>(14.93 \u00b1 0.22). Similarly, the mean ZOI\nwas significantly higher than other oolong and black tea extract solutions.\nSimilar to the present study results, a more significant zone of inhibition was\nseen with 300 \u03bcg\/ml ethanolic extract of green tea for S. mutans<\/em>\n(18.33mm) compared to L. acidophilus <\/em>(12.67mm) and chlorhexidine. The\ninhibitory zones increased with increasing amounts of ethanol extracts made\nfrom green tea.1<\/sup> It is attributed to the fact that the green tea\npolyphenols consist of significant catechins such as epigallocatechin (EGC),\nepicatechin EG, EGC gallate (EGCG). These major catechins disrupt the cell\nmembrane and prevent the supercoiling of DNA, which leads to bacterial\ndestruction. EGC interacts with proteins and distorts their tertiary structure.2<\/sup> Green tea\u2019s catechins are\nproven to be potential anti-cariogenic agents, which can reduce the microbial\nload in the oral cavity.16 <\/sup>In another study with black tea, the\nantibacterial activity was found to be minimal, and it has been mentioned that\nblack tea\u2019s antibacterial activity is due to the presence of polyphenols,\ncatechins, gallic acid, and theaflavins that are modified during the\nfermentation of the leaves. The chemical structures of both black and green\nteas differ despite the presence of equal quantities of flavonoids. The\nproduction of black tea in the fermentation process involves the conversion of\nthese flavonoids and catechins into arubigins and aflavins.15,17<\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although\ntea has a lot of benefits for human health, catechins and tannins are present\nin the phenolic groups, and brownish discoloration of teeth has been seen. This\nis due to the fact that a lower pH causes tooth discoloration. A study\ndemonstrated that the increased level of temperature, concentration, and\nfrequency of drinking black tea causes discoloration of the teeth.18<\/sup>\nHowever, factors such as decaffeinated or blended tea, variations in geographic\nlocation, climate, and soil may be responsible for the variations in the\ninhibitory effects of green tea with its chemical elements and flavonoid\nconcentration. Compared to green and black teas, oolong tea’s features have\nonly been the subject of a few investigations against various organisms. In the\ncurrent study, oolong tea demonstrated a significantly higher ZOI of 18.96 mm\nfor its aqueous sugar solution as compared to green tea of 18.56mm and black\ntea of 12.37 mm against S. mutans<\/em> than L. acidophilus<\/em>. Despite\nboth organisms being treated with an aqueous sugar solution, S. mutans<\/em>\nshowed better inhibition as compared to L. acidophilus<\/em>. This\nmight be because oolong tea contains more phytochemicals than green or black\ntea. It has been proposed that the monomeric polyphenols synergistic impact is\nresponsible for their antibacterial actions.19<\/sup> Oolong tea comprises more alkaloids, tannins, saponins, and\nflavonoids with various activities. It is well known that alkaloids prevent\nmicrobial cell proliferation. Tannins and flavonoids, which have strong\niron-binding abilities and reduce bacterial adhesion, are known to have\nanti-glucosyltransferase action and to inhibit bacterial adherence.20,21<\/sup>\nOn the other hand, 0.12% chlorhexidine was used as a\npositive control in the current study. It showed a significantly higher mean\nZOI of 19.4 mm as compared to all other tea extracts against both S. mutans<\/em>\nand L.<\/em> acidophilus,<\/em> as it has\nbeen proven to be an anti-cariogenic drug against various cariogenic organisms\nand is used as a mouth rinse.9<\/sup> The study was constrained by\nthe lack of an evaluation of the antibacterial activities of these tea extracts\nat their minimal inhibitory and minimal bacterial concentrations. The research\nwill be continued further for the same. It is recommended to evaluate the\nvarious effects of different kinds of tea on oral health when consumed at\ndifferent doses and temperatures. In addition, further comparative clinical\nstudies on the biological properties of different Camellia sinensis species<\/em>\nfrom various non-geographic areas and seasons are needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clinical significance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Besides the many medicinal benefits of green tea, it might be recommended as an alternative to other black teas owing to its proven antibacterial activity. The health of the oral tissues could be well preserved by incorporating the polyphenols present in green tea into oral health products. Future clinical research should also consider assessing the antibacterial effects of various concentrations of these tea extracts in combination with other antimicrobial medications to determine whether there are any synergistic effects on various cariogenic pathogens related to oral health. The findings from these upcoming investigations may lead to the development of novel, natural formulations with low side effects potentially beneficial in preventing oral infections. These formulations might supplement commercially available antimicrobial medications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Japanese green tea demonstrated superior antibacterial activity at a\nconcentration of 250 mg\/mL ethanolic solution against S. mutans<\/em> and L.\nacidophilus<\/em> when compared to its other concentrations and the concentrations\nof the other two types of tea. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Acknowledgement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We would like to thank the Research and Innovation Management Centre,\nSEGi University Kota Damansara, Malaysia for the support. Special gratitude to\nProfessor Dato\u2019 Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim Abu Hassan, Former Dean Faculty of\nDentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA for his support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conflict of Interest<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors report no conflict of interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funding Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study was financially supported by SEGiIRF\/2018-3\/FoD-13\/77 grant.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

  1. Anita\nP, Sivasamy S, Madan Kumar PD, Balan IN, Ethiraj S. In vitro antibacterial\nactivity of Camellia sinensis extract against cariogenic microorganisms. J\nBasic Clin Pharm<\/em>. 2014;6(1):35-39. <\/li>
  2. Namita\nP, Mukesh R, and Vijay K. Camellia sinensis (Green tea): A review. Glob J\nPharmacol<\/em>. 2012;6 (2):52\u20119. <\/li>
  3. Parikh\u2011Das\nAM, Sharma NC, Du Q, and Charles CA. Superiority of essential oils versus\n0.075% CPC\u2011containing mouth rinse: a two\u2011week randomised clinical trial. J\nClin Dent<\/em>. 2013;24(3):94-99.<\/li>
  4. Parwani\nSR, Parwani RN, Chitnis PJ, Dadlani HP, and Prasad SV. Comparative evaluation\nof anti\u2011plaque efficacy of herbal and 0.2% Chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash in\na 4\u2011day plaque re\u2011growth study. J Indian Soc Periodontol<\/em>.\n2013;17(1):72-77.<\/li>
  5. Segura-Egea\nJJ, Gould K, \u015een BH, Jonasson P, Cotti E, Mazzoni A, et al. Antibiotics in Endodontics:\na review. Int Endod J<\/em>. 2017;50(12):1169-1184.<\/li>
  6. Tahani\nB, Sabzian R. Effect of Camellia sinensis<\/em> plant on decreasing\nthe level of halitosis: A systematic review. Dent Res J (Isfahan)<\/em>.\n2018;15(6):379-384.<\/li>
  7. George\nDE, Shetty R, Shetty PJ, and Gomes LA. An In vitro Study to Compare the Effect\nof Different Types of Tea with Chlorhexidine on Streptococcus mutans. J Clin\nDiagn Res.<\/em> 2017;11(9): ZC05-ZC07.<\/li>
  8. Yang\nCS, and Landau JM. Effects of tea consumption on nutrition and health. J\nNutr.<\/em> 2000;130 (10):2409-2412. <\/li>
  9. Wang,\nS., Zeng, T., Zhao, S., Zhu, Y., Feng, C., Zhan, J., et al. Multifunctional\nhealth-promoting effects of oolong tea and its products. Food Sci. Hum.\nWellness. <\/em>2022;11(3):512-523.<\/li>
  10. Vyas\nT, Nagi R, Bhatia A, and Bains SK. Therapeutic effects of green tea as an\nantioxidant on oral health-A review. J Family Med Prim Care.<\/em>\n2021;10(11):3998-4001.<\/li>
  11. Teixeira\nAM, and Sousa C. A Review on the Biological Activity of Camellia Species. Molecules.<\/em>\n2021;26(8):2178.<\/li>
  12. Voina,\nC, Delean, A, Muresan, A, Valeanu, M, Mazilu Moldovan, A Popescu., et al.\nAntimicrobial Activity and the Effect of Green Tea Experimental Gels on Teeth\nSurfaces. Coatings.<\/em> 2020;10(6):537.<\/li>
  13. Truong\nD, Nguyen DH, Ta NT, Bui AV, Do T, and Nguyen H. Evaluation of the use of\ndifferent solvents for phytochemical constituents, antioxidants, and in vitro\nanti\u2011inflammatory activities of severinia buxifolia. J Food Qual.<\/em> 2019;\n1:1\u20119.<\/li>
  14. Bauer AW, Kirby WM, Sherris JC, and Turck M. Antibiotic\nsusceptibility testing by a standardised single disk method. Am J Clin\nPathol.<\/em> 1966; 45(4):493\u2011496.<\/li>
  15. Subramaniam\nP, Eswara U, and Maheshwar Reddy KR. Effect of different types of tea on\nStreptococcus mutans: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res<\/em>.\n2012;23(1):43-48.<\/li>
  16. Hattarki\nSA, Bogar C, and Bhat KG. Green tea catechins showed antibacterial activity on\nstreptococcus mutans -An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res.<\/em>\n2021;32(2):226-229.<\/li>
  17. Rasheed\nA, Haider M. Antibacterial activity of Camellia sinensis extracts against\ndental caries. Arch Pharm Res.<\/em> 1998; 21(3): 348-352. <\/li>
  18. Hidayah\nA, Redjeki S, and Gunawan, A H. The Influence of Temperature to Change Email\nColor after Application of Black Tea (Camellia sinensis L.).  J Int Dent Med Res.<\/em> 2018; 11(3): 988-993.<\/li>
  19. Sasaki\nH, Matsumoto M, Tanaka T, Maeda M, Nakai M, Hamada S, and Ooshima T.\nAntibacterial activity of polyphenol components in oolong tea extract against\nStreptococcus mutans. Caries Res.<\/em> 2004;38(1):2-8.<\/li>
  20. Kamrani\nYY, Amanlou M, Esmaeelian B, Bidhendi SM, and Jamei MS. Inhibitory effects of a\nflavonoid-rich extract of Pistacia vera hull on growth and acid production of\nbacteria involved in dental plaque. Int J Pharmacol<\/em>. 2007; 3:219-226.<\/li>
  21. Kolliyavar\nB, Shettar L, and Thakur S. Chlorhexidine: The gold standard mouth wash. J\nPharm Biomed Sci.<\/em> 2016;06(02):106\u2013109.<\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction Dental caries is one of the most severe infectious […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[107],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol16no2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49650","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\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49650"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49650\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50219,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49650\/revisions\/50219"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}