الفهرس 
Effect of guava leaves extract mouth wash on antibacterial activity, salivary PH and patient satisfaction compared to chlorhexidine mouth wash in high caries risk patients A randomized control clinical trial
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 118 |  |  |
| | | from | 118 | | |
Abstract
Aim: This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of guava leaves extract mouthwash on antibacterial activity against streptococcus mutans, salivary pH and patient satisfaction to taste compared to chlorhexidine mouthwash in high caries risk patients. Methodology: Participants considered as high caries risk according to CAMBRA caries risk assessment were selected. Baseline salivary samples were collected and sent for microbial analysis to assess mutans streptococci counts in colony forming units (CFU/ml). A total of forty participants were randomly divided to two groups according to the mouthwash used (A): A1 (Guava leaves extract mouthwash) and A2 (Chlorhexidine). Participants were instructed to use the mouthwash once a day for 1 week. This regimen was repeated monthly for three months. Bacterial count, salivary pH and patient satisfaction to taste were assessed after 1 week, 1 month and 3 months. The obtained results were subjected to statistical analysis using Medcalc software, version 19 for windows (MedCalc Software Ltd, Ostend, Belgium). The obtained results were subjected to the statistical analysis and the significance level was set at p {u2264} 0.05.Results: Regarding the bacterial count, both mouthwashes showed significant anti-bacterial effect but, no statistically significant difference was found between them against streptococcus mutans within follow up periods; 1 week, 1 month and 3 months respectively (P = 0.3568, P = 0.0673 and P=0.0601). Regarding salivary pH, no statistically significant difference was found between the tested groups within follow- up periods. Guava showed no statistically significant difference between different follow-up periods (P=0.0568), while chlorhexidine showed statistically significant difference between different follow-up periods (P=0.0133)