Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Efecto antimicrobiano del extracto etanólico de propóleo ecuatoriano frente a cepas de Aggregatibacter Actinomycetemcomitans y Porphyromonas Gingivalis
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Cedeño, Reyes José, María |
| Copyright Year | 2018 |
| Abstract | The propolis is a resin lipophilic material, gathered from live plants, processed and used by bees for multiple purposes inside the hives(1). It has several properties; it is antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, healer, regenerator of tissues, strengthens the immune system and it doesn’t produce bacterial resistance or adverse effects like certain synthetic products. All these properties make it a great candidate to be studied to treat bacterial diseases, such as periodontitis, which main pathogens are the Aggregatibacter Actinomycetemcomitans and the Porphyromonas gingivalis. (2) The composition of propolis varies depending on the origin and the local flora of the region where it is collected (3). Objective: to determine the antimicrobial capacity of the ethanol extract of Ecuadorian propolis against Aa and Pg. Materials and methods: there were used 60 Petri dishes, 30 with blood agar for the Porphyromonas Gingivalis ATCC® 33277™, and 30 with chocolate agar for the Aggregatibacter Actinomycetemcomitans ATCC® 29522™. Once the strains were placed, 6 disks soaked with 20ul of each solution were used; 4 of them had ethanol extract of propolis (obtained from a naturist store) at 10%, 20%, 30% and 100%. The last two disks were soaked with chlorhexidine at 0.12% as a positive control and saline solution as negative control. Within 24 and 48 hours the inhibition halos were measured. Results: the results of the inhibition halos obtained were processed by means of non-parametric tests Kruskal Wallis. These showed that the propolis at 10%, 20% and 30% did not have inhibitory effect on any of the strains, while the concertation at 100% had an inhibitory effect on both strains. However, the difference with the chlorhexidine at 0.12% was big, as its inhibitory effect is far bigger. |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://www.dspace.uce.edu.ec:8080/bitstream/25000/16632/1/T-UCE-0015-ODO-046.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
