ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Pathogenic bacteria in the oral cavity or a physiological microbiome imbalance can cause or maintain disease. Thus, this work examined a novel betadine–saline combination for antibacterial and antifungal activities.
Materials and Methods:
This study was in vitro. Betadine, saline, and their mixtures were tested for Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus (gram-positive), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Aspergillus niger (gram-negative). Pour plate and disc diffusion methods were used to test CFUs, DZI, and RZI for various agent combinations.
Results:
For Lactobacillus acidophilus, Betadine 90% + saline 10% had the greatest DZI and RZI at 24 and 12 mm, respectively. For E. coli, Betadine 50% + saline 50% had the highest at 16 and 8 mm. Betadine 60% + saline 40% had 14 mm RZI and the highest antifungal activity.
Conclusion:
The novel betadine–saline antibacterial and antifungal combination performed well. In vivo research should confirm the existing findings.
KEYWORDS: Antibacterial, antifungal, betadine, oral microbiome, saline
INTRODUCTION
Oral-oropharyngeal health impacts total health. Pathogenic bacteria or oral microbiome imbalances can cause tooth caries, periodontal disease, gingivitis, and upper respiratory tract infections. Viruses, bacteria, fungi, and protozoa cause these disorders. “Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP)” is more likely in hospitalized intubated patients with oropharyngeal bacteria. Oral and pharyngeal hygiene lowers community and hospital-acquired diseases. Cancer patients and medications might create oral problems. Early and adequate dental therapy may improve patients’ quality of life. Infection control is recommended by clinical guidelines and systematic reviews.[1,2,3] Dental, dermatological, and oral health antiseptic betadine is polyvinylpyrrolidone iodine. Antiseptics help antibiotics fight infections. Oropharyngeal disease efficacy and safety data are unreliable. This study assesses Betadine’s efficacy and safety as a first-line treatment for common upper respiratory infections, oral side effects of cancer therapy, and dental difficulties.[4,5,6]
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The current research was performed as an in vitro study. The antibacterial properties of the tested substance against a variety of bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus subtilis (gram-positive), and Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (gram-negative) by using the agar-well diffusion method. The bacterial strains culture was sterilized “Mueller Hinton Broth (MHB)” and incubated for 18 h at 37°C overnight, and around each well the “diameter of inhibition zone (DIZ)” was measured in mm to evaluate the antibacterial activity. Experiments were performed in triplicates. Antifungal activity was performed for test samples. Puncture the plates with the help of a borer aseptically and make four wells with concentrations of the test sample. Inoculate the plates by swabbing with Aspergillus. Carefully keep the plates in an upright position for incubation at 27°C for 1 week hours. Observe the plates for a clear zone of inhibition around each well. The various values that were obtained for the different concentrations of the betadine and saline were represented as “Diameter of zone of Inhibition (mm)—DZI”, “Radius of Zone of Inhibition (mm)—RZI” and the CFU—colony forming units, for the two methods of disc diffusion and the pour plate method, respectively.
RESULTS
Table 1 demonstrates that Betadine 100% showed the strongest antibacterial activity against Lactobacillus acidophilus and E. coli strains with 23 and 18 mm inhibition zones, respectively. Betadine is antimicrobial. Saline and Betadine decreased antibacterial activity against both strains in disc diffusion. Betadine 50% + saline 50% inhibited less than 100%. Previously, lowering active component concentration decreased antibacterial activity.[7] Betadine kills both germs 100% better than this antibiotic. Bacteria are becoming more antibiotic-resistant.[7] Betadine’s pour plate efficacy against Staphylococcus and Lactobacillus acidophilus strains was comparable in Table 2. Betadine eliminated Staphylococcus 100% after 24 h. Betadine concentrations against Lactobacillus acidophilus produced no colonies after 48 h. Like disc diffusion, increasing saline and decreasing Betadine decreased Staphylococcus’ antibacterial activity. Pour plates can detect even tiny bacteria colonies.[8] Table 3 illustrates Betadine’s disc diffusion against Aspergillus niger. Betadine 100% exhibited a 29 mm zone of inhibition. Betadine kills numerous fungi.[8] Aspergillus niger antifungal activity decreased with decreased Betadine and increased saline. Betadine 50% + saline 50% was substantially less antifungal than Betadine 100%. Finally, Table 4 shows Betadine’s pour plate antifungal effectiveness against Aspergillus niger. All quantities, including saline, enabled Aspergillus niger growth except Betadine.
Table 1.
Antibacterial activity of selected test samples by disc diffusion method
| Strain | Concentration of betadine and saline | DZI (mm) | RZI (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | Betadine 100% | 23 | 11.5 |
| Saline 100% | 0 | 0 | |
| Betadine 50% + Saline 50% | 18 | 9 | |
| Betadine 90% + Saline 10% | 24 | 12 | |
| Betadine 80% + Saline 20% | 19 | 9.5 | |
| Betadine 70% + Saline 30% | 15 | 7.5 | |
| Betadine 60% + Saline 40% | 15 | 7.5 | |
| Antibiotic | 12.5 | 6.25 | |
| E. coli | Betadine 100% | 18 | 9 |
| Saline 100% | 0 | 0 | |
| Betadine 50% + Saline 50% | 16 | 8 | |
| Betadine 90% + Saline 10% | 13 | 6.5 | |
| Betadine 80% + Saline 20% | 14 | 7 | |
| Betadine 70% + Saline 30% | 13.5 | 6.75 | |
| Betadine 60% + Saline 40% | 11.5 | 5.75 | |
| Antibiotic | 34 | 17 |
Table 2.
Antibacterial activity of selected test samples by pour plate method
| Strain | Concentration of Betadine and Saline | CFU/ml (24 h) | CFU/ml (48 h) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Staphylococcus | Betadine 100% | No colonies | 5.15×106 |
| Saline 100% | 8.35×106 | 1.09×108 | |
| Betadine 50% + Saline 50% | 6.5×106 | 1.32×107 | |
| Betadine 90% + Saline 10% | 6.5×105 | 6.5×105 | |
| Betadine 80% + Saline 20% | 3.2×106 | 1.205×107 | |
| Betadine 70% + Saline 30% | 1.8×106 | 2.7×106 | |
| Betadine 60% + Saline 40% | 3.15×106 | 5.5×106 | |
| Lactobacillus acidophillus | Betadine 100% | No colonies | No colonies |
| Saline 100% | 5×104 | 4.5×105 | |
| Betadine 50% + Saline 50% | 2×105 | 2.5×105 | |
| Betadine 90% + Saline 10% | 2.5×105 | 3.5×105 | |
| Betadine 80% + Saline 20% | 2×105 | 2×105 | |
| Betadine 70% + Saline 30% | 2×105 | 2×105 | |
| Betadine 60% + Saline 40% | 5×104 | 1.5×105 | |
| Blank | 4.35×106 | 5.45×106 |
Table 3.
Antifungal activity of selected test samples by disc diffusion method
| Strain | Concentration of Betadine and saline | RZI (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| Aspergillus niger | Betadine 100% | 29 |
| Saline 100% | 0 | |
| Betadine 50% + Saline 50% | 14.5 | |
| Betadine 90% + Saline 10% | 20 | |
| Betadine 80% + Saline 20% | 18 | |
| Betadine 70% + Saline 30% | 16 | |
| Betadine 60% + Saline 40% | 14 | |
| Antifungal -Fluconazole | 6.5 |
Table 4.
Antifungal activity of selected test samples by pour plate method
| Strain | Concentration of Betadine and saline | Growth (24 h) |
|---|---|---|
| Aspergillus niger | Betadine 100% | No colonies |
| Saline 100% | Growth observed | |
| Betadine 50% + Saline 50% | Growth observed | |
| Betadine 90% + Saline 10% | Growth observed | |
| Betadine 80% + Saline 20% | Growth observed | |
| Betadine 70% + Saline 30% | Growth observed | |
| Betadine 60% + Saline 40% | Growth observed | |
| Blank | Growth observed |
DISCUSSION
Several studies show that Betadine destroys germs. Jain et al. (2019) found Betadine efficient against numerous bacterial strains.[8] Betadine concentration is linked with bactericidal activity.[9] Betadine inhibits surgical wound infection. Several studies show that Betadine is antifungal. Majidipour et al. found Betadine efficient against numerous fungal strains.[10] Betadine reduced fungal load in diabetic foot ulcers in Shukrimi et al.[11] Shivamurthy et al.,[12] say Betadine treats skin and nail fungal infections. Studies have examined antibacterial saline mouthwash. Laine investigated salivary bacteria count and saline mouthwash.[13] Saline mouthwash greatly reduced salivary microbial count. Okuda et al., found that saline mouthwash decreased bacteria count in oral lichen planus patients.[14] No literature supports this new Betadine and saline combination for this inquiry. Disc diffusion matches prior studies.[15] Antibacterial and antifungal betadine is a popular antiseptic. Iodine-free povidone destroys bacteria. Betadine destroys bacteria and fungus in various studies. It prevents surgical wound infections and cures skin and nail fungus. Betadine’s broad-spectrum antibacterial effect makes it a good antiseptic. Finally, saline mouthwash is antibacterial and antifungal. Chemotherapy, oral lichen planus, and oral candidiasis patients utilized it. Halitosis improves with saline mouthwash. These research studies show saline mouthwash is safe and effective.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Betadine has strong antibacterial and antifungal action against diverse strains, and its efficacy depends on its concentration and salinity. The disc diffusion and pour plate procedures were employed to test test samples against various bacteria and fungi. These findings imply that Betadine and saline solutions’ antibacterial and antifungal efficacy depends on concentration and testing method. These solutions’ mechanics and applicability need further study.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Scher JU, Bretz WA, Abramson SB. Periodontal disease and subgingival microbiota as contributors for rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis: Modifiable risk factors? Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2014;26:424–9. doi: 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.McGuire DB, Correa ME, Johnson J, Wienandts P. The role of basic oral care and good clinical practice principles in the management of oral mucositis. Support Care Cancer. 2006;14:541–7. doi: 10.1007/s00520-006-0051-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kohn WG, Collins AS, Cleveland JL, Harte JA, Eklund KJ, Malvitz DM, et al. Guidelines for infection control in dental health-care settings--2003. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2003;52:1–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Azarpazhooh A, Leake JL. Systematic review of the association between respiratory diseases and oral health. J Periodontol. 2006;77:1465–82. doi: 10.1902/jop.2006.060010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Slots J. Selection of antimicrobial agents in periodontal therapy. J Periodontal Res. 2002;37:389–98. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0765.2002.00004.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Shi Z, Xie H, Wang P, Zhang Q, Wu Y, Chen E, et al. Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;8:CD008367. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008367.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lachapelle JM, Castel O, Casado AF, Leroy B, Micali G, Tennstedt D, et al. Antiseptics in the era of bacterial resistance: A focus on povidone iodine. Future Med. 2013;10:579–92. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Jain VM, Karibasappa GN, Dodamani AS, Prashanth VK, Mali GV. Comparative assessment of antimicrobial efficacy of different hand sanitizers: An in vitro study. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2016;13:424–31. doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.192283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lepelletier D, Maillard JY, Pozzetto B, Simon A. Povidone Iodine: Properties, Mechanisms of Action, and Role in Infection Control and Staphylococcus aureus Decolonization. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64(9) doi: 10.1128/AAC.00682-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Majidipour N, Abdeyazdan Z, Zargham-Boroujeni A. Chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine: Which solution is more effective on skin colonization in neonates? Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2013;18:54–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Shukrimi A, Sulaiman AR, Halim AY, Azril A. A comparative study between honey and povidone iodine as dressing solution for Wagner type II diabetic foot ulcers. The Medical journal of Malaysia. 2008;63:44–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Shivamurthy RP, Reddy SG, Kallappa R, Somashekar SA, Patil D, Patil UN. Comparison of topical anti-fungal agents sertaconazole and clotrimazole in the treatment of tinea corporis - an observational study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(9) doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/10210.4866. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Laine P, Meurman JH, Murtomaa H, Lindqvist C, Torkko H, Pyrhönen S, Teerenhovi L. One-year trial of the effect of rinsing with an amine fluoride -stannous-fluoride-containing mouthwash on gingival index scores and salivary microbial counts in lymphoma patients receiving cytostatic drugs. Journal of clinical periodontology. 1993;20:628–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1993.tb00707.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Okuda K, Adachi M, Iijima K. The efficacy of antimicrobial mouth rinses in oral health care. The Bulletin of Tokyo Dental College. 1998;39:7–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kamath S, Kamath R, Kamath L, Salins P, Soman B, Raj AL, et al. Engineering green hospitals: An imperative for a sustainable future. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology. 2019;10:538–44. [Google Scholar]