Aim: To compare the efficacy of aqueous tulsi extract in disinfecting the denture base and soft liner against American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) 10231 and clinical strain of Candida albicans.Materials and methods: A total of 120 samples were fabricated, with 60 of them having dimensions of 10 × 10 × 2 mm for heat cure resin and the other 60 of 10 × 1.5 mm for silicon soft liner.Surface roughness was measured using a profilometer.These samples were then inoculated with clinical and ATCC 10231 strain of C. albicans and kept at 37°C for 48 hours.The concentration of standardized cells was 1 × 10 6 cells/mL.Tulsi extract was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC).The denture samples were submerged overnight in disinfecting solutions, while the soft liners were subjected to the same process for 10 minutes.Three solutions were used: 10% aqueous tulsi extract, Fittydent tabs, and distilled water.The number of colony-forming units (CFUs) before and after disinfection was assessed to evaluate the effectiveness of the disinfectants.The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was used for the denture group, while analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the post hoc Tukey test was used for the soft liner group.The cytotoxicity of the disinfectants was evaluated using an MTT assay on gingival fibroblast.Results: A significant difference in disinfection ability was observed between all three groups for denture base (p < 0.001).However, there was no significant difference between the tulsi and Fittydent groups for the clinical strain of C. albicans on soft liner (p > 0.7).Soft liners significantly differed with ATCC strain across all three groups (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Around 10% aqueous tulsi extract is safe for gingival fibroblast and could effectively disinfect dentures and soft liners against clinical and ATCC strains of C. albicans.Clinical significance: Patients may use aqueous 10% tulsi disinfectant for daily denture cleaning, which has shown promising results even on soft liners for 10 minutes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahajan et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: