Aim The purpose of this study was to conduct phytochemical analysis of sea buckthorn pulp oil and to evaluate the antimicrobial, anti‐biofilm and antioxidant activities of its mouthwash form. Methods and Results Fatty acid composition of the sea buckthorn pulp oil was determined by GC‐MS analysis, which revealed that, mono‐unsaturated fatty acid, palmitoleic acid and saturated fatty acid, palmitic acid, were the major constituents. The antimicrobial and the anti‐biofilm capacities of sea buckthorn pulp oil mouthwash form were evaluated against Streptococcus gordonii, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Actinomyces viscosus and Candida albicans, according to the European Norms, and the Biofilm Ring Test®, respectively. These activities were then compared with those of chlorhexidine and herbal mouthwashes. The sea buckthorn‐based mouthwash was bactericidal against S. gordonii and P. gingivalis, bacteriostatic against A. viscosus and showed no antifungal effect. Regardless of the strains used, complete inhibition of biofilm formation was achieved. The antioxidant activity of this experimental mouthwash was also assessed by DPPH and NBT assays. Conclusion Sea buckthorn mouthwash showed anti‐biofilm activities against select single and multiple oral bacterial species. Significance and Impact of the Study In this study, a mouthwash derived from sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) pulp oil has been experimented, for the first time, in order to overcome the problem of a large number of available synthetic mouthwashes which have side effects on teeth, gums and mucous membranes. This mouthwash seemed to be a suitable alternative for a preventive agent for periodontal inflammation.

Background and aimsThe purpose of this study was to compare several parameters of root canal preparation using two different rotary Nickel-Titanium instruments: Pro-Taper (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballagigues, Switzerland) and Hero-Shaper (Micro Mega, Besancon, France).MethodsTwelve extracted maxillary premolars were randomly divided into two groups and embedded into a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 25 using Pro-Taper or Hero-Shaper rotary instruments. The following parameters were evaluated: root canal form, centering capacity of the instrument, the presence of residual dentinal debris and smear layer on the root canal walls, working time and the occurrence of intraoperative accidents. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi2 test (p=0.05).ResultsThe majority of the root canals prepared with Hero Shaper (88.89%) and ProTaper (77.78%) showed a round or oval cross-section postoperatively. Superposition of pre- and postoperative photographs of the cross-sections showed that for the coronal third of the root canals the Hero Shaper performed in a superior manner, while for the apical third better results were obtained with the Pro Taper system. Cleanliness of the root canal walls was investigated under the SEM, in the middle third of the canal, using a five-score system for debris and smear layer. For debris Hero Shaper and Pro Taper rotary systems achieved 66.67% and 50% scores of 1 or 2, respectively. The results for the smear layer were similar: cleaner root canal walls were found after preparation with Hero Shaper (66.67% scores 1, 2), followed by Pro Taper (50%). Mean working time was shorter for Hero Shaper (124s) than for Pro Taper (184s); the difference was not significant.ConclusionsWithin the limits of this study, both systems had almost the same cleaning ability and excellent centering capacity.