Antibacterial activity of 1 % Roselle flower nano-emulsion extract (Hibiscus sabdariffa) against peri-implantitis-related bacteria on orthodontic mini-implants: An in vitro study

Abstract

Objective: The orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) failure often occurs due to the accumulation of peri-implantitis bacteria surrounding it, which results in a stable, resistant form of absolute skeletal anchorage during orthodontic treatment. Administering doxycycline may be the solution, but long-term side effects result in antibiotic resistance. Roselle flowers (Hibiscus sabdariffa) possess beneficial active phytochemical substances, which may have potential as an OMI peri-implantitis alternative therapy. This study investigates the antibacterial activity of 1 % Roselle flower (H. sabdarifa) nanoemulsion (NE) extract (1 % RNE) toward peri-implantitis bacteria in OMIs.

Methods: A phytochemical analysis of 1 % RNE was carried out to examine the active substances possessed in it, such as flavonoids, quinone, saponin, alkaloids, tannins, terpenoids, and steroids. Nanoemulsion characterization was carried out using a particle size analyzer (PSA). The antibacterial activity of 1 % RNE toward Prevotella intermedia (Pi), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa), and Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn) was carried out to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration, minimum bactericidal concentration, and inhibitory zone compared with doxycycline as a positive control.

Results: Roselle flower NE extract (1 %) possessed flavonoids, quinone, saponin, alkaloids, tannins, terpenoids, and steroids positively. The PSA showed that the 1 % RNE had a size of 98.13 d nm. The antibacterial activity of 1 % RNE against Aa, Pg, Pi, and Fn bacteria at 3.125 % showed significant differences (p < 0.05). The antibacterial activity of 1 % RNE toward peri-implantitis bacteria is lower than that of doxycycline.

Conclusion: Roselle flower NE extract (1 %) has antibacterial activity against peri-implantitis bacteria at a concentration of 3.125 %.

Keywords: Hibiscus sabdarifa; Medicine; Nanoemulsion; Orthodontic; Peri-implantitis.

Graphical abstract

Fig. 1

(A) Phytochemical analysis of 1 % RNE. (B) Particle size analyzer result of 1 % RNE.

Fig. 2

1 % RNE antibacterial activity against Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa). (A) Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), (B) Minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), (C) Inhibitory zone of Roselle nanoemulsion at a concentration of 3.125 % shows better antibacterial activity than 1.56 % against Aa bacteria, (D) MBC graph of Aa bacteria, (E) Inhibition zone graph of Aa, (F) MIC graph of Aa. Note: Significant differences between groups at p < 0.05∗∗∗, p < 0.01∗∗∗∗.

Fig. 3

1 % RNE antibacterial activity against Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg). (A) Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), (B) Minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), (C) Inhibitory zone of Roselle nanoemulsion at a concentration of 3.125 % shows better antibacterial activity than 1.56 % against Pg bacteria, (D) MBC graph of Pg bacteria, (E) Inhibition zone graph of Pg, (F) MIC graph of Pg. Note: Significant differences between groups at p < 0.05∗∗∗, p < 0.01∗∗∗∗.

Fig. 4

1 % RNE antibacterial activity against Prevotella intermedia (Pi). (A) Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), (B) Minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), (C) Inhibitory zone of Roselle nanoemulsion at a concentration of 3.125 % shows better antibacterial activity than 1.56 % against Pi bacteria, (D) MBC graph of Pi bacteria, (E) Inhibition zone graph of Pi, (F) MIC graph of Pi. Note: Significant differences between groups at p < 0.05∗∗∗, p < 0.01∗∗∗∗.

Fig. 5

1 % RNE antibacterial activity against Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn). (A) Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), (B) Minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), (C) Inhibitory zone of Roselle nanoemulsion at a concentration of 3.125 % shows better antibacterial activity than 1.56 % against Fn bacteria, (D) MBC graph of Fn bacteria, (E) Inhibition zone graph of Fn, (F) MIC graph of Fn. Note: Significant differences between groups at p < 0.05∗∗∗, p < 0.01∗∗∗∗.