Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. May-Jun 2017;25(3):324-334.
doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0222.

Clinical Trial for Evaluation of Ricinus Communis and Sodium Hypochlorite as Denture Cleanser

Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Clinical Trial for Evaluation of Ricinus Communis and Sodium Hypochlorite as Denture Cleanser

Maurício Malheiros Badaró et al. J Appl Oral Sci. .
Free PMC article


Objective: This study evaluated Ricinus communis and sodium hypochlorite solutions in terms of biofilm removal ability, remission of candidiasis, antimicrobial activity, and participant satisfaction.

Material and methods: It was conducted a controlled clinical trial, randomized, double-blind, and crossover. Sixty-four denture wearers with (n=24) and without candidiasis (n=40) were instructed to brush (3 times/day) and immerse their dentures (20 min/day) in different storage solutions (S1 / S2: 0.25% / 0.5% sodium hypochlorite; S3: 10% R. communis; S4: Saline).The trial period for each solution was seven days and a washout period of seven days was used before starting the use of another solution. The variables were analyzed at baseline and after each trial period. The biofilm of inner surfaces of maxillary dentures was disclosed, photographed, and total and dyed areas were measured (Image Tool software). The percentage of biofilm was calculated. Remission of candidiasis was assessed by visual scale and score were attributed. Antimicrobial activity was assessed by the DNA-Checkerboard hybridization method. Patient satisfaction was measured using a questionnaire.

Results: S1 (4.41±7.98%) and S2 (2.93±5.23%) were more effective then S3 (6.95±10.93%) in biofilm remotion(P<0.0001). All solutions were different from the control (11.07±11.99%). S3 was the most effective solution in remission of candidiasis (50%), followed by S1 (46%). Concerning antimicrobial action, S1/S2 were similar and resulted in the lowest microorganism mean count (P=0.04), followed by S3. No significant differences were found with patient's satisfaction.

Conclusions: 10% R. communis and 0.25% sodium hypochlorite were effective in biofilm removal, causing remission of candidiasis and reducing the formation of microbial colonies in denture surfaces. All solutions were approved by patients.


Figure 1
Figure 1. Investigated microorganisms
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart of the participants of the study period
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mean biofilm percentage (±SD) according to the treatments (p=0.0001) and the inflammation (p=0.19). Different colors indicate significant difference
Figure 4
Figure 4. Mean total microbial count (×105 cells, ±SD) of the groups with and without inflammation (p=0.075)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Mean total microbial count (×105 cells, ±SD) of the 43 evaluated species dentures after treatment (Different colors indicate significant differences; P=0.041)

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article


    1. Ambjornsen E, Rise J, Haugejorden O. A study of examiner errors associated with measurement of denture plaque. Acta Odontol Scand. 1984;42(3):183–191. - PubMed
    1. Andrade IM, Andrade KM, Pisani MX, Silva-Lovato CH, Souza RF, Paranhos HF. Trial of an experimental castor oil solution for cleaning dentures. Braz Dent J. 2014;25(1):43–47. - PubMed
    1. Aparecida Guimarães M, Rocchetto Coelho L, Rodrigues Souza R, Ferreira-Carvalho BT, Marie Sá Figueiredo A. Impact of biocides on biofilm formation by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (ST239-SCCmecIII) isolates. Microbiol Immunol. 2012;56(3):203–207. - PubMed
    1. Badaró MM, Salles MM, Arruda CN, Oliveira VC, Souza RF, Paranhos HF, et al. In vitro analysis of surface roughness of acrylic resin exposed to the combined hygiene method of brushing and immersion in Ricinus communis and sodium hypochlorite. 10.1111/jopr.12436.J Prosthodont. 2016 In press. - PubMed
    1. Bloem TJ, Razzoog ME. An index for assessment of oral health in the edentulous population. Spec Care Dentist. 1982;2(3):121–124. - PubMed

Publication types