Ethnobotanical Leaflets 10: 265-271.
2006. Antimicrobial Activities of
some Nigerian Chewing Sticks *Ogundiya,
M.O., **Okunade, M.B. and *Kolapo,
A.L * Department of
Biology, The Polytechnic, ** Department of
Chemistry, The Polytechnic, (Corresponding
author: adelodunkolapo@yahoo.com) Issued ABSTRACTThe antimicrobial activities of the ethanolic extracts of three Nigerian chewing sticks, namely, Terminalia glaucescens, Anogeissus leiocarpus and Pseudocedrela kotschyi were investigated. Results from this study showed that the antimicrobial activities of the tested chewing sticks vary and are target-microbe specific. Of the tested chewing sticks, A. leiocarpus showed a significantly higher antibacterial activity (P<0.05) against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes; and this was closely followed by T. glaucescens, while P. kotschyi virtually had no activity against these two organisms. However, the activity of T. glaucescens against Streptococcus mutans was significantly higher (P<0.05) than that exhibited by A. leiocarpus. The extracts of the three chewing sticks had no activity against Candida albicans. The antibacterial activities of these two potent chewing sticks made them suitable for better dental care. INTRODUCTION Utilization of non-timber forest
products (NTFP) is gaining importance in the tropical world because of their
commercial importance to the host community (Akande
and Hayashi, 1998). These authors further stated that chewing sticks are
important NTFP widely used for dental cleaning in the tropical Buada and Boakye-Yiadom (1973) stated that these chewing sticks impact varying taste sensation; a tingling peppery taste, a bitter taste and numbness is provided. Enwowu (1997) posited that, chewing sticks, in addition to providing mechanical stimulation of the gums, also destroy microbes; these advantages of the chewing sticks over the conventional toothpaste and brush has been attributed to the strong teeth of Africans (Ugoji et al, 2000). The choice of chewing sticks to be used in most cases
depends on its cleansing action of the teeth; the therapeutic value, or
preferred taste or flavour. The sticks (which may
be stem or root with bark removed or retained) are cut to convenient lengths
and washed thoroughly with fresh water to get rid of the earth or any dirt.
The diameter should afford good grip, say between 0.5-1.30 cm. Akande and Hayashi (1998) reported that some of the
chewing sticks being used are obtained from the following plants: Garcinia
manni, Masularia accuminita, Terminalia glaucescens, Anogeissus leiocarpus, Pseudocedrela kotschyi, Xanthoxyllum gilletti and Azadiracta indica. Investigations carried out on some of these chewing sticks showed that they posses antimicrobial activity against oral microbial flora such as Staphylococcus aureus and S. auricularis (Akande and Hayashi ,1998), Candida albicans, Aspergillus flavus, Microsporium gypseum and Trichophyton metagrophytes (Adekunle and Odukoya, 2006). The whole of
Nigerian landscape is blessed with an abundant supply of the plants from
which chewing sticks are obtained. These indigenous raw materials need to be
processed and packaged for local consumption and perhaps for export. This
become more imperative as Indian product-Darbur
herbal toothpaste has become a household name in It must be stressed that the development of virile herbal toothpaste is consequent upon the bioactivity of the constituent chewsticks against a wide range of oral pathogens. Hence the aim of this paper is to report the antimicrobial activity of the ethanolic extracts of three Nigerian chewing sticks; Terminalia glaucescens, Anogeissus leiocarpus and Pseudocedrela kotschyi on oral pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans. MATERIALS
|
Chewing Time of Extract concentrations (g/l) Incubation sticks (hours) 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.0 |
|||||
Terminalia glaucescens |
24 |
1.33±0.47 |
3.00±1.41 |
3.67±0.47 |
5.33±0.47 |
48 |
1.17±0.24 |
2.33±0.85 |
3.33±0.24 |
4.67±0.62 |
|
72 |
1.16±0.24 |
2.33±0.85 |
3.33±0.24 |
4.67±0.62 |
|
Anogeissus leiocarpus |
24 |
2.67±0.94 |
3.50±1.08 |
5.50±1.08 |
7.00±1.63 |
48 |
2.50±1.08 |
3.33±1.18 |
5.00±1.41 |
6.50±1.87 |
|
72 |
2.50±1.08 |
3.33±1.18 |
5.00±1.41 |
6.50±1.87 |
|
Pseudocedrela kotschyi |
24 |
- |
- |
- |
1.00±0.00 |
48 |
- |
- |
- |
0.9±0.10 |
|
72 |
- |
- |
- |
0.9±0.10 |
|
Control |
24 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
48 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
72 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Values in mm [mean ± S.D (n=3)]
- implies no detectable inhibition
Table 2. Inhibition of Streptococus pyogenes by different concentrations of ethanolic extracts of three tropical chewing sticks.
Chewing Time of Extract concentrations (g/l) Incubation sticks (hours) 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.0 |
|||||
Terminalia glaucescens |
24 |
- |
1.00±0.00 |
2.17±0.24 |
3.67±0.47 |
48 |
- |
1.00±0.00 |
2.00±0.40 |
3.50±0.71 |
|
72 |
- |
1.00±0.00 |
2.00±0.40 |
3.50±0.71 |
|
Anogeissus leiocarpus |
24 |
2.33±0.47 |
3.50±0.41 |
4.17±0.62 |
4.67±0.47 |
48 |
2.00±0.41 |
3.17±0.62 |
3.83±0.62 |
4.17±0.23 |
|
72 |
2.50±0.41 |
3.17±0.62 |
3.83±0.62 |
4.33±0.24 |
|
Pseudocedrela kotschyi |
24 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
48 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
72 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Control |
24 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
48 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
72 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Values in mm [mean ± S.D (n=3)]
- implies no detectable inhibition
Table 3. Inhibition of Streptococus mutans by different concentrations of ethanolic extracts of three tropical chewing sticks.
Chewing Time of Extract concentrations (g/l) Incubation sticks (hours) 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.0 |
|||||
Terminalia glaucescens |
24 |
2.33±0.47 |
4.00±0.00 |
5.00±0.00 |
6.33±0.47 |
48 |
1.33±0.47 |
3.00±0.00 |
4.00±0.00 |
6.33±0.47 |
|
72 |
1.00±0.00 |
2.00±0.00 |
2.67±0.47 |
4.33±0.47 |
|
Anogeissus leiocarpus |
24 |
- |
1.00±0.00 |
2.33±0.47 |
4.00±0.00 |
48 |
- |
- |
2.00±0.00 |
3.00±0.00 |
|
72 |
- |
- |
- |
1.00±0.00 |
|
Pseudocedrela kotschyi |
24 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
48 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
72 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Control |
24 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
48 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
72 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Values in mm [mean ± S.D (n=3)]
- implies no detectable inhibition
Table 4. Inhibition of Candida albicans by different concentrations of ethanolic extracts of three tropical chewing sticks.
Chewing Time of Extract concentrations (g/l) Incubation sticks (hours) 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.0 |
|||||
Terminalia glaucescens |
24 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
48 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
72 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Anogeissus leiocarpus |
24 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
48 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
72 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Pseudocedrela kotschyi |
24 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
48 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
72 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Control |
24 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
48 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
72 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- implies no detectable inhibition
Table 5. Result of the qualitative analysis of the phytochemicals present in chewing sticks samples.
SAMPLE |
Alkaloid |
Glycoside |
Steroid |
Anthraquinone |
Phenol |
Tannins |
Saponin |
Calcium |
Fluoride |
Pseudocedrela kotschyi |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
ND |
ND |
Anogeissus leiocarpus |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
Terminalia glaucescens, |
+ |
+ |
+ |
ND |
+ |
+ |
+ |
ND |
+ |
+ implies present
ND implies not detected