- Visibility 224 Views
- Downloads 14 Downloads
- DOI 10.18231/j.jds.2020.016
-
CrossMark
Comparative evaluation of oil pulling agents for reduction of plaque induced gingivitis: A clinico-microbiological study
Introduction
Gingivitis is an inflammation of the gingiva that may or may not progress to clinical attachment loss. Their primary etiological factor is bacterial plaque, which can initiate destruction of the gingival tissues.[1] In mechanical therapy of plaque control Scaling and root planing is the mainstay of periodontal therapy. Chemical plaque control agents such as chlorhexidine is one of the routinely prescribed antiseptic agents in dentistry. Chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash significantly reduce plaque bacteria and helps in prevention of development of gingivitis.[2] These procedures are used to remove all bacterial plaque and calculus from the surfaces of teeth.[3] But mouthwash such as chlorhexidine have some drawbacks, like alteration in taste sensation, staining of teeth and increase calculus formation.[4]
Oil pulling or oil swishing is an ancient natural healing practice originated in India and has been described as Kavalagraha or Gandhoosha in the ayurvedic texts of Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita.[5] Oil pulling or oil swishing, in alternative medicine, is a procedure that involves swishing oil in the mouth for oral and systemic health benefits. It can be done using edible oils like coconut oil, sesame oil.[6] There are no disadvantages for oil pulling therapy except that the procedure is required to be conducted for extended duration to be effective and to show positive results.[7]
Sesame oil is readily available in every household. It contains medium chain fatty acid. This influences the physical and chemical properties of the oil. It generates antioxidants which kill microbes and cause their cell wall damage. It has not only anti-inflammatory effect but also substantial antimicrobial activity against a range of microorganisms. Its palatability is better compared to other refined edible oils.[8], [9]
Coconut oil contains 92% saturated acids, approximately 50% of which is lauric acid and is believed to have antiinflammatory and antimicrobial properties.[10] It is also proposed that the alkalis in saliva react with oil resulting in saponification and formation of soap like substance which reduces adhesion of plaque.[11] Hence, the lauric acid in the coconut oil may react with salivary sodium hydroxide forming sodium laureate, the main constituent of soap which might be responsible for the cleansing action and decreased plaque accumulation.[12]
Material and Methods
The study was designed as single blind randomized controlled clinical trial. This clinical study was carried out in MGV’s KBH Dental College And Hospital Nashik, Maharashtra, in department of Periodontology and Implantology. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Informed written consent was obtained from the patients before the study. A total of fourty patients with mild to moderate plaque induced gingivitis of age group 15 – 25 years attending the dental hospital were selected for the study.
Selection criteria
Patients with gingival index score of more than 2, bleeding on probing with a minimum of 20 teeth, systemically healthy patients diagnosed with generalised chronic gingivitis.
Exclusion criteria
Patients having chronic localized or generalized periodontitis, with smoking and other tobacco related habits, patients undergoing orthodontic treatment, Pregnancy and lactating mother and participants who were not willing to participate in the study were excluded from the study.
Patients were divided into two groups-Group A - oil pulling with coconut oil as an adjunct to scaling and root planing. Group B- oil pulling with sesame oil as an adjunct to scaling and root planing.
Measurements of the clinical parameter performed by a single blind trained operator. Study parameters were checked were Gingival index (GI) according to Loe and Silness (1963),[13] Plaque index (PI) assessed according to Silness and Loe (1964)[14] and Simplified oral hygiene index (OHI-S)according to JC Greene 1963.[15] OHIS is a sufficiently sensitive method for assessing the oral hygiene of individuals in group and it offers a more rapid method for evaluating oral cleanliness.[15]
Minimum inhibitory concentration of oil pulling agents was determined by agar well diffusion methods.
All the participants were given 225 ml (15 ml for 15 days) of intervention agent in labeled bottles along with empty bottle to collect used oil. Participants in both groups were informed about intervention they were given in the study. Participants in the Group A were advised to take a 15 ml of coconut oil and participants in the Group B were advised to take a 15 ml of sesame oil and swish it in the mouth around gums, teeth, and tongue after brushing and before consuming any fluids in the morning for 15 days along with the routine oral hygiene practice. Once the oil became viscous and milky, it should spit into the empty bottle given and then rinse the mouth with warm water.
Postintervention gingival status for the Group A and Group B participants assessed using gingival index , plaque index and simplified oral hygiene index at the baseline, 7th day, 15th day, 1stmonth and at 3rd month.
Microbial analysis
Antibacterial activity of coconut oil and sesame oil were tested by minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay by agar well diffusion method on Mueller Hinton agar with 5% sheep blood (MHBA). Plaque sample were collected using curette at the baseline. Using a sterile spreader Plaque samples were spread on MHBA Using 6-mm well cutter, two wells were made in each plate. Fifty microliters of both oils were added into their respectively marked wells and incubated for 24 hours at 37°C. After incubation the plates were observed for the zone of inhibition around the wells. None of the oil showed any inhibitory activity for plaque sample.
Results
The present study was undertaken to compare the effect of oil pulling practice using coconut oil with sesame oil in reducing the severity of plaque induced gingivitis.
Oral hygiene practices across the both groups were similar. Tooth brush and tooth paste were the only oral hygiene aids used. None of the participants had visited dentist in the previous three months.
To check normality of data Shapiro-Wilk test and Kolmogorov - Smirnov test were used Power of test is 95% and level of significance is 5%
|
Group A |
Mean |
N |
SD |
SE |
t-Value |
P-Value |
% Change |
Result |
|
|
Plaque Index |
Baseline |
1.83 |
10 |
0.63 |
0.20 |
3.455 |
0.0072 |
19.08 |
Sig |
|
Day 7 |
1.48 |
10 |
0.59 |
0.19 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
1.83 |
10 |
0.63 |
0.20 |
4.623 |
0.0012 |
28.54 |
Sig |
|
|
Day 15 |
1.31 |
10 |
0.44 |
0.14 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
1.83 |
10 |
0.63 |
0.20 |
5.158 |
0.0006 |
53.09 |
Sig |
|
|
1 Month |
0.86 |
10 |
0.34 |
0.11 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
1.83 |
10 |
0.63 |
0.20 |
5.640 |
0.0003 |
55.82 |
Sig |
|
|
3 Months |
0.81 |
10 |
0.27 |
0.09 |
Paired t test was carried out to compare the values in group A at 7th day, 15th day, 1 month and 3 months as compared to baseline. Significant change was observed in the Mean plaque index value in Group A ([Table 1])
|
Group B |
Mean |
N |
SD |
SE |
t-Value |
P-Value |
% Change |
Result |
|
|
Plaque Index |
Baseline |
1.71 |
10 |
0.60 |
0.19 |
1.096 |
0.3017 |
3.04 |
NS |
|
Day 7 |
1.66 |
10 |
0.55 |
0.17 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
1.71 |
10 |
0.60 |
0.19 |
3.114 |
0.0124 |
12.40 |
Sig |
|
|
Day 15 |
1.50 |
10 |
0.57 |
0.18 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
1.71 |
10 |
0.60 |
0.19 |
3.909 |
0.0036 |
24.85 |
Sig |
|
|
1 Month |
1.29 |
10 |
0.34 |
0.11 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
1.71 |
10 |
0.60 |
0.19 |
4.203 |
0.0023 |
32.11 |
Sig |
|
|
3 Months |
1.16 |
10 |
0.32 |
0.10 |
Paired t test was carried out to compare the values in group B at 7th day, 15th day, 1 month and 3 months as compared to baseline. Significant change was observed in the Mean plaque index value in Group B [Table 2])
|
Group A |
Mean |
N |
SD |
SE |
t-Value |
P-Value |
% Change |
Result |
|
|
Gingival Index |
Baseline |
2.29 |
10 |
0.53 |
0.17 |
5.035 |
0.0007 |
33.65 |
Sig |
|
Day 7 |
1.52 |
10 |
0.50 |
0.16 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
2.29 |
10 |
0.53 |
0.17 |
6.788 |
0.0001 |
52.93 |
Sig |
|
|
Day 15 |
1.08 |
10 |
0.35 |
0.11 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
2.29 |
10 |
0.53 |
0.17 |
7.334 |
0.0000 |
64.03 |
Sig |
|
|
1 Month |
0.82 |
10 |
0.20 |
0.06 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
2.29 |
10 |
0.53 |
0.17 |
7.572 |
0.0000 |
66.35 |
Sig |
|
|
3 Months |
0.77 |
10 |
0.23 |
0.07 |
Paired t test was carried out to compare the values in group A at 7th day, 15th day,, 1 month and 3 months as compared to baseline. Significant change was observed in the Mean gingival index value in Group A ([Table 3])
|
Group B |
Mean |
N |
SD |
SE |
t-Value |
P-Value |
% Change |
Result |
|
|
Gingival Index |
Baseline |
2.59 |
10 |
0.93 |
0.29 |
3.989 |
0.0032 |
14.91 |
Sig |
|
Day 7 |
2.20 |
10 |
0.72 |
0.23 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
2.59 |
10 |
0.93 |
0.29 |
3.976 |
0.0032 |
27.42 |
Sig |
|
|
Day 15 |
1.88 |
10 |
0.64 |
0.20 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
2.59 |
10 |
0.93 |
0.29 |
4.497 |
0.0015 |
35.69 |
Sig |
|
|
1 Month |
1.67 |
10 |
0.46 |
0.15 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
2.59 |
10 |
0.93 |
0.29 |
5.093 |
0.0007 |
47.08 |
Sig |
|
|
3 Months |
1.37 |
10 |
0.47 |
0.15 |
Paired t test was carried out to compare the values in group B at 7th day, 15th day, 1 month and 3 months as compared to baseline. Significant change was observed in the Mean gingival index value in Group B([Table 4])
|
Group A |
Mean |
N |
SD |
SE |
t-Value |
P-Value |
% Change |
Result |
|
|
OHIS |
Baseline |
0.50 |
10 |
0.29 |
0.09 |
2.570 |
0.0302 |
9.22 |
Sig |
|
Day 7 |
0.45 |
10 |
0.27 |
0.09 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
0.50 |
10 |
0.29 |
0.09 |
3.243 |
0.0101 |
19.04 |
Sig |
|
|
Day 15 |
0.40 |
10 |
0.23 |
0.07 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
0.50 |
10 |
0.29 |
0.09 |
6.551 |
0.0001 |
28.26 |
Sig |
|
|
1 Month |
0.36 |
10 |
0.24 |
0.08 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
0.50 |
10 |
0.29 |
0.09 |
7.102 |
0.0001 |
32.67 |
Sig |
|
|
3 Months |
0.34 |
10 |
0.24 |
0.08 |
Paired t test was carried out to compare the values in group A at 7th day, 15th day,1 month and 3 months as compared to baseline. Significant change was observed in the Mean OHIS index value in Group A.([Table 5])
|
Group B |
Mean |
N |
SD |
SE |
t-Value |
P-Value |
% Change |
Result |
|
|
OHIS |
Baseline |
0.91 |
10 |
0.34 |
0.11 |
0.557 |
0.5913 |
6.37 |
NS |
|
Day 7 |
0.85 |
10 |
0.47 |
0.15 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
0.91 |
10 |
0.34 |
0.11 |
1.904 |
0.0894 |
18.44 |
NS |
|
|
Day 15 |
0.74 |
10 |
0.37 |
0.12 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
0.91 |
10 |
0.34 |
0.11 |
3.870 |
0.0038 |
27.11 |
Sig |
|
|
1 Month |
0.66 |
10 |
0.31 |
0.10 |
|||||
|
Baseline |
0.91 |
10 |
0.34 |
0.11 |
4.384 |
0.0018 |
33.04 |
Sig |
|
|
3 Months |
0.61 |
10 |
0.31 |
0.10 |
Paired t test was carried out to compare the values in group B at7th day, 15th day, 1 month and 3 months as compared to baseline. Significant change was observed in the Mean OHIS index value in Group B. ([Table 6])
|
Plaque Index |
Group |
N |
Mean |
SD |
SE |
t-Value |
P-Value |
Result |
|
Baseline |
Group A |
10 |
1.83 |
0.63 |
0.20 |
0.432 |
0.671 |
NS |
|
Group B |
10 |
1.71 |
0.60 |
0.19 |
||||
|
Day 7 |
Group A |
10 |
1.48 |
0.59 |
0.19 |
-0.697 |
0.495 |
NS |
|
Group B |
10 |
1.66 |
0.55 |
0.17 |
||||
|
Day 15 |
Group A |
10 |
1.31 |
0.44 |
0.14 |
-0.839 |
0.412 |
NS |
|
Group B |
10 |
1.50 |
0.57 |
0.18 |
||||
|
1 Month |
Group A |
10 |
0.86 |
0.34 |
0.11 |
-2.814 |
0.011 |
Sig |
|
Group B |
10 |
1.29 |
0.34 |
0.11 |
||||
|
3 Month |
Group A |
10 |
0.81 |
0.27 |
0.09 |
-2.643 |
0.017 |
Sig |
|
Group B |
10 |
1.16 |
0.32 |
0.10 |
For comparison between Group A and Group B, we have used unpaired t-test. From above table we can observe that, there is no significant difference observed in Group A and Group B for Baseline, Day 7 and Day 15. While P-Value for 1 month and 3 month is less than 0.05. Hence at 1 month and 3 months there is significant difference between Group A and Group B. ([Table 7] and [Figure 1], [Figure 2]).
However significant differences were obtained at 1 month and 3 month intervals between both the groups P less than 0.01 with group A showing decreased reduction of PI as compared to Group B
|
Gingival Index |
Group |
N |
Mean |
SD |
SE |
t-Value |
P-Value |
Result |
|
Baseline |
Group A |
10 |
2.29 |
0.53 |
0.17 |
-0.887 |
0.387 |
NS |
|
Group B |
10 |
2.59 |
0.93 |
0.29 |
||||
|
Day 7 |
Group A |
10 |
1.52 |
0.50 |
0.16 |
-2.474 |
0.024 |
Sig |
|
Group B |
10 |
2.20 |
0.72 |
0.23 |
||||
|
Day 15 |
Group A |
10 |
1.08 |
0.35 |
0.11 |
-3.478 |
0.003 |
Sig |
|
Group B |
10 |
1.88 |
0.64 |
0.20 |
||||
|
1 Month |
Group A |
10 |
0.82 |
0.20 |
0.06 |
-5.327 |
0.000 |
Sig |
|
Group B |
10 |
1.67 |
0.46 |
0.15 |
||||
|
3 Month |
Group A |
10 |
0.77 |
0.23 |
0.07 |
-3.643 |
0.002 |
Sig |
|
Group B |
10 |
1.37 |
0.47 |
0.15 |
For comparison between Group A and Group B, we have used unpaired t-test. From above table we can observe that, there is no significant difference observed in Group A and Group B for Baseline. While P-Value for Day 7, Day 15, 1 month and 3 month is less than 0.05. Hence at Day 7, Day 15, 1 month and 3 months there is significant difference between Group A and Group B.([Table 8] and [Figure 3], [Figure 4])
However significant differences were obtained at 1 month and 3 month intervals between both the groups P less than 0.01 with group A showing decreased reduction of GI as compared to Group B
|
OHIS |
Group |
N |
Mean |
SD |
SE |
t-Value |
P-Value |
Result |
|
Baseline |
Group A |
10 |
0.50 |
0.29 |
0.09 |
-2.946 |
0.009 |
NS |
|
Group B |
10 |
0.91 |
0.34 |
0.11 |
||||
|
Day 7 |
Group A |
10 |
0.45 |
0.27 |
0.09 |
-2.341 |
0.031 |
NS |
|
Group B |
10 |
0.85 |
0.47 |
0.15 |
||||
|
Day 15 |
Group A |
10 |
0.40 |
0.23 |
0.07 |
-2.468 |
0.024 |
NS |
|
Group B |
10 |
0.74 |
0.37 |
0.12 |
||||
|
1 Month |
Group A |
10 |
0.36 |
0.24 |
0.08 |
-2.468 |
0.024 |
Sig |
|
Group B |
10 |
0.66 |
0.31 |
0.10 |
||||
|
3 Month |
Group A |
10 |
0.34 |
0.24 |
0.08 |
-2.218 |
0.040 |
Sig |
|
Group B |
10 |
0.61 |
0.31 |
0.10 |
For comparison between Group A and Group B, we have used unpaired t-test. From above table we can observe that, P-Value for each follow up is less than 0.05. Hence we conclude that, there is significant difference observed between Group A and Group B.([Table 9] and [Figure 5], [Figure 6])
However significant differences were obtained at 1 month and 3 month intervals between both the groups P less than 0.01 with group A showing decreased reduction of OHIS as compared to Group B
To check Antibacterial activity of the coconut oil and sesame oil minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay by agar well diffusion method on Mueller Hinton agar with 5% sheep blood (MHBA) was used. Results of the assay shows no inhibitory activity for plaque samples. There were no zone of inhibition found around wells for both the oil groups ([Figure 7])
Discussion
Gingival diseases are family of complex pathological entities found in gingiva that are the result of a variety of etiologies. There are several clinical characteristics common to all gingival diseases and these include clinical signs of inflammation, signs and symptoms that are confined to the gingiva, reversibility of the disease by removing the etiology, the presence of bacterial laden plaque to initiate severity of disease and a possible role as a precursor for attachment loss around teeth. [16]
Adjunctive oral hygiene procedures such as chemical mouth was hare advised to improve the oral health of individuals with gingivitis. The most common side-effect of the mouthwash like chlorhexidine is a yellow brown staining of teeth. Another disconcerting effect of chlorhexidine is alterations in taste sensation.
Oil pulling is an age-old process found in Charaka Samhita and Sushrutha’s Arthashastra. [17] The process is called Kavala Gandoosha or kavala Graha in Ayurveda. [18]
Coconut oil has high very saponification index. Lauric acid in oil react with alkalies in saliva such as sodium hydroxide and bicarbonates it form sodium laureate. It is a soap like substance, which reduces the plaque adhesion and accumulation, and possesses cleansing action. Also it has antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. [19]
In our study the mean PI in group A and B reduced significantly from baseline to 15 days, 1 month and 3 months. Similar results were obtained by Peedikayil et al 2015. [12]
In their preliminary study they concluded that thecoconut oil pulling practice is effective in reducing plaqueformationand plaque‑induced gingivitis. A statistically significant decrease in gingival and plaque indices was noticed from day 7 and the scores showed continued decrease in their study.
Asokan et al. 2009 [20] compared oil pulling with sesame oil and chlorhexidine mouth was hand found that oil pulling using sesame oil equally effective as chlorhexidine in decreasing
plaque induced gingivitis
Saravanan et al.2013 [21] conducted study in that the effect of oil pulling using sesame oil on plaque‑induced gingivitis. They found statistically significant decrease in scores of plaque and gingival indices and number of bacteria in the mouth.
With background, present study compared the efficacy of coconut oil and sesame oil pulling practice in reducing the severity of plaque induced gingivitis.
Present study results shows reduction in the mean GI, PI, OHIS scorefor coconut oil and sesame oil comparing to the preintervention stage. Coconut oil and sesame oil group shows statistically significant difference in the reduction of PI, GI, OHIS score between preintervention and the 7th, 15th, 1 month and 3 month of post intervention stage.
Present study findings are in accordance with the previous Studies i.e. both the coconut oil and sesame oil were effective in the reducing the severity of gingivitis.
Coconut oil compare to sesame oil group shows that a more significant reduction in the severity of gingivitis was seen in coconut oil group than the sesame oil group at all postintervention stage. So the result in present study reveal that oil pulling using coconut oil is more effective than the sesame oil and possibly supported by the evidence of antimicrobial activity of coconut oil
Conclusion
Oil pulling with coconut and sesame oil serves as promising antimicrobial agent to treat plaque induced gingivitis. Hence this holds chance to be added to other oral hygiene measures. However coconut oil is better than sesame oil.
Source of Funding
No financial support was received for the work within this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
- . Treatment of plaque-induced gingivitis, chronic periodontitis, and other clinical conditions. J Periodontol 2001. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- S B Kumar. Chlorhexidine mouthwash-a review. J Pharm Sci 2017. [Google Scholar]
- GM Rabbani, MM Ash, RG Caffesse. The Effectiveness of Subgingival Scaling and Root Planing in Calculus Removal. J Periodontol 1981. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- D Gupta, DJ Bhaskar, RK Gupta, B Karim, A Jain, R Singh. A randomized controlled clinical trial of Ocimum sanctum and chlorhexidine mouthwash on dental plaque and gingival inflammation. J Ayurveda Integr Med 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- S Kaliamoorthy, A Pazhani, M Nagarajan, A Meyyappan, S Rayar, S Mathivanan. Comparing the effect of coconut oil pulling practice with oil pulling using sesame oil in plaque-induced gingivitis: A prospective comparative interventional study. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- S Asokan, TK Rathinasamy, N Inbamani, T Menon, SS Kumar, P Emmadi. Mechanism of oil-pulling therapy -In vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- S Pathak. Oil pulling therapy in dental practice: A short review. SRM J Dent Res Sci 2016. [Google Scholar]
- P Sood, MA Devi, R Narang, V Swathi, DK Makkar, . Comparative efficacy of oil pulling and chlorhexidine on oral malodor: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Diagn . [Google Scholar]
- M Debmandal, S Mandal. Cocos nucifera L.: Arecaceae): in health promotion and disease prevention. Asian Pac. Asian Pac J Trop Med 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Z Ahmad, R Hasham, NF Aman Nor, MR Sarmidi. Physico-chemical and antioxidant analysis of virgin coconut oil using West African tall variety. J Adv Res 2015. [Google Scholar]
- H Mythri. Oil pulling: A traditional method on the edge of evidence. Dent Hypotheses 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- FC Peedikayil, P Sreenivasan, A Narayanan. Effect of coconut oil in plaque related gingivitis - A preliminary report. Nigerian Med J 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- H Löe, J Silness. Periodontal Disease in Pregnancy I. Prevalence and Severity. Acta Odontol Scand 1963. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- J Silness, H Löe. Periodontal Disease in Pregnancy II. Correlation Between Oral Hygiene and Periodontal Condition. Acta Odontol Scand 1964. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- JC Greene. Oral Hygiene and Periodontal Disease. Am J Public Health Nations Health 1963. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- A Mariotti. Dental Plaque-Induced Gingival Diseases. Ann Periodontol 1999. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- L Nagesh, HV Amith, AV Ankola. Effect of Oil Pulling on Plaque and Gingivitis. J Oral Health Community Dent 2007. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- PP Selvam, N Nandan, R Sinil. Oil Pulling - A Blessing in Disguise. J Ayurveda Integr Med 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- VK Shanbhag. Oil pulling for maintaining oral hygiene-A review. J Tradit Complement Med 2017. [Google Scholar]
- S Asokan, P Emmadi, R Chamundeswari. Effect of oil pulling on plaque induced gingivitis: A randomized, controlled, triple-blind study. Indian J Dent Res 2009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- D Saravanan, S Ramkumar, K Vineetha. Effect of oil pulling with sesame oil on plaque-induced gingivitis: A microbiological study. J Orofac Res 2013. [Google Scholar]