RESULTS: Minimal inhibitory concentration was determined at 0.625% of the concentration of ACV against S. mutans and E. faecalis and 1.25% of the concentration of ACV against L. casei with two-fold serial dilutions. A concentration of 5 × 10-1% with 10-fold serial dilutions was found to be the MIC value for all three bacteria. No significant differences were found when compared with the positive control (NaOCl) (p = 0.182, p = 0.171, and p = 0.234), respectively, for two-fold serial dilutions and (p = 1.000, p = 0.658, and p = 0.110), respectively for 10-fold serial dilutions. MBC was observed to be 5% ACV for both E. faecalis and S. mutans. However, positive microbial growth was observed on the agar plate when cultured with L. casei. An independent sample t-test showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the antimicrobial activities between 5% ACV and 5% pure AA. TEM revealed cell wall and cytoplasmic membrane disruptions on all three bacteria at MIC value.

CONCLUSION: Apple cider vinegar has antimicrobial activities against Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus mutans, and Lactobacillus casei at their respective MIC values.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a stainless-steel mold, disc-shaped wax patterns with dimensions of 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick (in accordance with ADA Specification No. 12) were created and prepared for a total of 75 acrylic samples. Dimensions of all 75 acrylic samples were checked with a digital Vernier caliper. About 25 samples of denture base material were immersed in three different chemical disinfectants: Group I: immersed in chlorhexidine gluconate solution, group II: immersed in sodium hypochlorite solution, and group III: immersed in glutaraldehyde solution. All samples were scrubbed daily for 1 minute with the appropriate disinfectant and submerged for 10 minutes in the same disinfectant. Between disinfection cycles, samples were kept in distilled water at 37°C. Color stability was measured using a reflection spectrophotometer. Surface roughness values were measured by a profilometer at baseline following 15 days and 30 days.

RESULTS: After 15 days, the color stability was better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (4.88 ± 0.24) than sodium hypochlorite solution (4.74 ± 0.18) and glutaraldehyde solution group (4.46 ± 0.16). The mean surface roughness was less in glutaraldehyde solution group (2.10 ± 0.19), followed by chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (2.48 ± 0.09) and sodium hypochlorite solution group (2.64 ± 0.03). After 30 days, the color stability was significantly better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (4.40 ± 0.02), followed by sodium hypochlorite solution (4.06 ± 0.16) and glutaraldehyde solution group (3.87 ± 0.17). The mean surface roughness was significantly lesser in glutaraldehyde solution group (2.41 ± 0.14), followed by chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (2.94 ± 0.08) and sodium hypochlorite solution group (3.02 ± 0.13).

CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the color stability was significantly better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group than sodium hypochlorite solution and glutaraldehyde solution group. But the surface roughness was significantly lesser in the glutaraldehyde solution group, followed by the chlorhexidine gluconate and sodium hypochlorite solution group.