Table 2.
Comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of quail paste versus others according to time and type of microorganism.
| Group | Microorganism | Time | p ∗ | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 hours | 48 hours | ||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||
| Control paste | S. aureus | 12.53 | 0.16 | 12.33 | 0.13 | 0.619 | >0.05‡ |
| Quail paste | 12.63 | 0.08 | 12.33 | 0.16 | 0.433 | ||
| Universal Polishing paste | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | ||
| Diamond Excel paste | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | ||
|
| |||||||
| Control paste | E. coli | 12.61 | 0.08 | 12.56 | 0.10 | 0.740 | >0.05‡ |
| Quail paste | 12.68 | 0.07 | 12.36 | 0.10 | 0.678 | ||
| Universal Polishing paste | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | ||
| Diamond Excel paste | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | ||
|
| |||||||
| Control paste | E. faecalis | 12.61 | 0.75 | 12.28 | 0.11 | 0.945 | >0.05‡ |
| Quail paste | 12.71 | 0.07 | 12.31 | 0.14 | 0.841 | ||
| Universal Polishing paste | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | ||
| Diamond Excel paste | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | ||
|
| |||||||
| Control paste | C. albicans | 6.53 | 0.30 | 6.16 | 0.16 | 0.840 | <0.001† |
| Quail paste | 8.70 | 0.14 | 8.43 | 0.12 | 0.924 | ||
| Universal Polishing paste | 7.00 | 0.11 | 7.00 | 0.11 | — | ||
| Diamond Excel paste | 11.10 | 5.44 | 13.41 | 0.27 | 0.051 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Control paste | S. mutans | 11.45 | 0.31 | 10.71 | 0.43 | 0.835 | <0.001† |
| Quail paste | 11.65 | 0.15 | 11.21 | 0.29 | 0.160 | ||
| Universal Polishing paste | 8.71 | 0.11 | 8.25 | 0.18 | 0.841 | ||
| Diamond Excel paste | 11.25 | 1.17 | 10.3 | 0.49 | 0.001 | ||
∗Shapiro–Wilk test. ⁑Student's t-test (groups with null values were excluded from the analysis). †ANOVA test. All measurements were expressed in mm, using the Kirby–Bauer method.