Oral device cleaning agent composition having a bactericidal effect against oral bacteria

Abstract

The present invention relates to a composition for cleaning oral appliances comprising, as an active ingredient, a complex containing Haematococcus pluvialis extract, myrrh resin extract, sea grape extract, oak moss extract, green tea extract, lactoferrin, and peppermint oil. Such a complex has excellent antibacterial / antifungal effects against oral bacteria and fungi such as Streptococcus mutans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Candida albicans, and Acinetobacter johnsonii, has efficacy in preventing bad breath and stomatitis, and can prevent tartar from accumulating on oral appliances. Accordingly, by using the composition of the present invention, users of oral devices such as braces, jaw joint correctors, bruxism prevention devices, and dentures can maintain more hygienic and clean oral care.

Description

Technology Field

[0001] The present invention relates to an oral appliance cleaning composition having bactericidal efficacy against oral bacteria. Background Technology

[0002] The number of people using various oral appliances, such as devices for orthodontics, temporomandibular joint correction, and bruxism prevention, as well as dentures, is increasing. Consequently, the cleaning of these appliances is closely linked to dental health and oral diseases. Therefore, the removal of dental plaque, which consists of microorganisms and their byproducts adhering to the surface of oral appliances, is crucial. Currently, various physical devices or chemical compositions are primarily available to remove deposits like dental plaque; thus, there is a growing need for natural-based oral appliance cleaners that are easy to use and harmless to the human body. While imported products developed abroad are manufactured in tablet form in the recent market, they are inconvenient to use after every meal, leading consumers to use toothpaste or dish soap as substitutes.

[0003] Accordingly, the inventors confirmed that a hygienic oral environment can be maintained by using a composition containing various natural extracts and protein enzymes with excellent antibacterial, deodorizing, and cleaning efficacy as an oral appliance cleaning composition, and thus completed the present invention. Prior art literature

[0004] Republic of Korea Registered Patent No. 10-2001851 (Title of Invention: Composition for Denture Cleaner and Denture Cleaner Using the Same, Applicant: Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation of Dong-Eui University, Registration Date: July 15, 2019) Republic of Korea Published Patent No. 10-2022-0131639 (Title of Invention: Method for Manufacturing Tablet-Type Denture Cleaner, Applicant: HLB Co., Ltd., Publication Date: September 29, 2022) The problem to be solved

[0005] The objective of the present invention is to provide an oral appliance cleaning composition having bactericidal efficacy against oral bacteria. means of solving the problem

[0006] The present invention relates to an oral appliance cleaning composition comprising, as an active ingredient, a complex containing Haematococcus pluvialis extract, myrrh resin extract, sea grape extract, oak moss extract, green tea extract, lactoferrin, and peppermint oil.

[0007] The above-mentioned compound is characterized by having plaque removal efficacy.

[0008] Preferably, based on 1.0 part by weight of Haematococcus pluvialis extract, the above complex may contain 2.5 to 3.0 parts by weight of myrrh resin extract, 2.5 to 3.0 parts by weight of sea grape extract, 3.0 to 3.5 parts by weight of oak moss extract, 1.0 to 2.0 parts by weight of green tea extract, 0.1 to 0.5 parts by weight of lactoferrin, and 10.0 to 13.0 parts by weight of peppermint oil.

[0009] The above-mentioned complex is characterized by having bactericidal and antibacterial efficacy against oral bacteria. Preferably, the above-mentioned composition is Streptococcus mutans, a cavity-causing bacterium in the oral cavity ( Streptococcus mutans It is characterized by having sterilization and antibacterial efficacy against ).

[0010] Or the above-mentioned complex is characterized by having an efficacy in preventing bad breath. Preferably, Porphyromonas gingivalis, a bad breath-causing bacterium ( Porphyromonas gingivalis It is characterized by having sterilizing and antibacterial efficacy against ). The above composition is one of the causative bacteria of stomatitis, Candida albicans ( Candida albicans Antifungal efficacy against ) and Acinetobacter johnsonii ( Acinetobacter johnsonii It is characterized by having sterilization and antibacterial properties against ). As causative agents of stomatitis, Candida albicans can cause candidal stomatitis, and Acinetobacter johnsonii can cause aphthous stomatitis.

[0011] The above complex may also include eucalyptus oil, calendula extract, chamomile extract, papain, protease, lysozyme, ethanol, sodium bicarbonate, L-menthol, glycerin, cocamidopropyl betaine, sodium cocoyl glutamate, floxamer 407, hydrogenated castor oil, fragrance, and purified water.

[0012] Preferably, based on 1.0 part by weight of Haematococcus pluvialis extract, 0.5 to 1.5 parts by weight of eucalyptus oil, 0.5 to 2.0 parts by weight of calendula extract, 0.5 to 2.0 parts by weight of chamomile extract, 0.03 to 0.07 parts by weight of papain, 0.03 to 0.07 parts by weight of protease, 0.05 to 0.5 parts by weight of lysozyme, 1700.0 to 2200.0 parts by weight of ethanol, 40.0 to 60.0 parts by weight of sodium bicarbonate, 0.5 to 2.0 parts by weight of L-menthol, 230.0 to 300.0 parts by weight of glycerin, 80.0 to 130.0 parts by weight of cocamidopropyl betaine, 40.0 to 60.0 parts by weight of sodium cocoyl glutamate, and 40.0 to 55.0 parts by weight of chlorophyll 407. It may contain parts by weight, 150.0 to 250.0 parts by weight of hydrogenated castor oil, 10.0 to 30.0 parts by weight of fragrance, and 5000.0 to 10000.0 parts by weight of purified water.

[0013] The above composition is also characterized by preventing the formation of tartar outside the oral device.

[0014] The above oral device may include all of the following: a tooth straightener, a dental brace, a jaw joint straightener, a bruxism prevention device, a denture, etc.

[0015] The present invention will be described in detail below.

[0016] The complex of the present invention is characterized by inhibiting the growth of Streptococcus mutans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Candida albicans, and Acinetobacter johnsonii by 99.9% for 4 to 24 hours at a rate of 1 μg / ml.

[0017] The extract in the above complex or composition may be obtained by extracting a dried raw material sample using water, C1-C4 alcohol, 1,3-butylene glycol, or a mixed solution thereof as a solvent, and the C1-C4 alcohol may be selected from the group consisting of methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, butanol, and isobutanol. The extract may also be water, a 20-90 (v / v)% aqueous alcohol extract, or a 20-90 (v / v)% aqueous 1,3-butylene glycol extract. Preferably, it may be a water extract, a 50-80 (v / v)% aqueous alcohol extract, a 20-50 (v / v)% aqueous alcohol extract, a 50-80 (v / v)% aqueous 1,3-butylene glycol extract, or a 20-50 (v / v)% aqueous 1,3-butylene glycol extract.

[0018] The water, C1-C4 alcohol, 1,3-butylene glycol, or a mixed solution thereof used in the preparation of the above extract may be used in an amount of 1 to 40 times the volume (1 to 40 liters per 1 kg) or 1 to 40 times the weight based on the weight of the raw material sample used, and preferably 5 to 40 times the volume or 5 to 40 times the weight. The extraction conditions of the above extract may be at 20 to 100°C, or at 20 to 80°C, or at 20 to 50°C, for 1 minute to 10 days, 1 minute to 5 days, or 1 minute to 2 days. The above process may be repeated 1 to 4 times.

[0019] After the above extraction, pre-filtering can be performed using non-woven fabric, paper, cloth, etc., or filtered using filters having various pore sizes, for example, filtering can be performed using filters having pore sizes of 10, 5, 2, 1, 0.6, 0.45, and 0.2 μm, and other filters may be used, additional filters may be added, or omitted as needed.

[0020] In addition, the above extract may be extracted by adding a buffer solution such as saline solution, Tri-HCl, salin solution, PBS (Phosphate-buffered saline), or HBSS (Hank's balanced salt solution) to a raw material sample; a buffer solution containing one or more of arginine, vitamin C, Tris-HCl, glycine, diphosphate, phosphate, potassium diphosphate, or potassium phosphate; or a buffer solution containing ionizing components such as calcium, iodine, iron, magnesium, selenium, zinc, sodium, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, copper, manganese, iron, and guanidine.

[0021] In addition, as a conventional method in the field, the extract of the above extract, water, C1-C4 alcohol, or a mixed solution thereof can be dissolved in water and then further fractionated using one or more solvents selected from the group consisting of n-hexane, methylene chloride, acetone, chloroform, ethyl acetate, and n-butanol to produce a fraction.

[0022] Conventional extraction devices, ultrasonic grinding extractors, or fractionators may be used as the extraction device for the above extract or its fractions. The extract or fraction prepared in this way may have the solvent removed by hot air drying, vacuum drying, or freeze-drying. Additionally, the above extract or fraction may be purified using column chromatography for use.

[0023] The above chromatography may be selected from silica gel column chromatography, LH-20 column chromatography, ion exchange resin chromatography, medium pressure liquid chromatography, thin layer chromatography (TLC), silica gel vacuum liquid chromatography, and high performance liquid chromatography.

[0024] The peppermint oil and eucalyptus oil in the above composition or complex are essential oils, which are extracted from the flowers, stems, fruits, roots, resins, etc., of aromatic medicinal plants. Depending on the characteristics of the plant, the essential oil is extracted using methods such as cold pressing, steam distillation, solvent extraction, or supercritical carbon dioxide extraction. In the present invention, the essential oil prepared by steam distillation may be used. Effects of the invention

[0025] The present invention relates to a composition for cleaning oral appliances comprising, as an active ingredient, a complex comprising Haematococcus pluvialis extract, myrrh resin extract, sea grape extract, oak moss extract, green tea extract, lactoferrin, and peppermint oil. Such a complex is Streptococcus mutans ( Streptococcus mutans ), Porphyromonas gingivalis( Porphyromonas gingivalis ), Candida albicans( Candida albicans ), Acinetobacter John Sonny( Acinetobacter johnsonii It has excellent antibacterial / antifungal effects against oral bacteria and fungi such as ), prevents bad breath / stomatitis, and can prevent tartar from accumulating on oral appliances.

[0026] Accordingly, by using the composition of the present invention, users of oral devices such as braces, jaw joint correctors, bruxism prevention devices, and dentures can maintain more hygienic and clean oral care. Specific details for implementing the invention

[0027] Preferred embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail below. However, the present invention is not limited to the embodiments described herein and may be embodied in other forms. Rather, the content introduced herein is provided to fully convey the concept of the present invention to those skilled in the art, so that it may be thorough and complete.

[0028] <Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Examples 1 to 3. Preparation of Natural Product-Derived Complexes>

[0029] Haematococcus pluvialis, the main active ingredient of the oral appliance cleaning agent composition of the present invention ( Haematococcus Pluvialis ) extract, myrrh resin extract, sea grape( Caulerpa lentillifera ) extract, oak moss( Evernia Prunastri Oakmoss extract, green tea leaf extract, lactoferrin, and peppermint oil were first mixed as shown in Table 1 below to first verify their various antibacterial and bad breath prevention effects.

[0030] This is also a procedure to select the most effective one as a cleansing agent composition and to verify appropriate mixing conditions or formulation stabilization conditions with the remaining ingredients, such as eucalyptus oil, calendula flower extract, chamomile flower extract, papain, protease, lysozyme, ethanol, sodium bicarbonate, L-menthol, glycerin, cocamidopropyl betaine, sodium cocoyl glutamate, floxamer 407, hydrogenated castor oil, grapefruit seed extract prepared as a fragrance, and purified water.

[0031] Ingredients Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 　 Comparative Example 1 Comparative Example 2 Comparative Example 3 Haematococcus pluvialis extract (g) 1.00 1.00 1.00 　 0.00 1.00 1.00 Myrrh resin extract (g) 3.00 2.50 2.50 　 0.00 2.00 1.00 Sea grape extract (g) 2.80 3.00 2.50 　 1.00 4.00 1.00 Oak moss extract (g) 3.00 3.50 3.50 　 0.00 3.00 1.00 Green tea extract (g) 2.00 1.00 1.50 　 5.00 0.00 0.50 Lactoferrin (g) 0.10 0.50 0.50 　 1.00 0.00 1.00 Peppermint oil (g) 10.10 10.50 10.50 　 15.00 12.00 16.50 Subtotal (g) 22.00 22.00 22.00 　 22.00 22.00 22.00

[0032] Each extract used as a raw material was prepared by adding 10 times its weight of a 70% (v / v) ethanol aqueous solution to a raw material sample (plant, seaweed, moss, resin) and extracting it at 60°C for 8 hours, then concentrating the resulting liquid under reduced pressure and freeze-drying it. Peppermint oil and eucalyptus oil to be used later were purchased as products manufactured as essential oils. Other raw materials, such as excipients and enzymes, were purchased and used as ingredients commonly used in food or mouthwashes.

[0033] <Formulation Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Formulation Examples 1 to 5. Preparation of Formulation Compositions>

[0034] Formulation compositions were prepared as shown in Tables 2 and 3, using the composite components and content of Example 1 as a representative example. To this end, six types of excipients corresponding to each formulation composition were prepared and compared.

[0035] The compositions in Tables 2 and 3 were prepared to verify the formulation state according to the content of excipients and the presence or absence of ingredients, and Table 4 is a formulation composition prepared using the components and content of the complex of Comparative Example 3, but there are also differences in the excipients.

[0036] Ingredients Formulation Example 1 Weight of each ingredient (g) Formulation Example 2 Weight of raw material (g) Formulation Example 3 Weight of raw material (g) Haematococcus pluvialis extract Example 1 Composite 1.00 Example 1 Composite 1.00 Example 1 Composite 1.00 Myrrh resin extract 3.00 3.00 3.00 Sea grape extract 2.80 2.80 2.80 Oak moss extract 3.00 3.00 3.00 Green tea extract 2.00 2.00 2.00 Lactoferrin 0.10 0.10 0.10 Peppermint oil 10.10 10.10 10.10 Eucalyptus oil First brother 1.00 Second brother 1.50 Third brother 0.50 Calendula extract 1.00 0.50 2.00 Chamomile extract 1.00 2.00 0.50 Papain 0.05 0.03 0.07 protease 0.05 0.07 0.03 Lysozyme 0.05 0.50 0.10 ethanol 1900.00 1800.00 2000.00 sodium bicarbonate 50.00 60.00 40.00 L-Menthol 1.00 0.50 2.00 glycerin 250.00 280.00 230.00 Cocamidopropyl Betaine 100.00 130.00 80.00 sodium cocoyl glutamate 50.00 60.00 40.00 Floxamer 407 50.00 40.00 50.00 Hydrogenated castor oil 200.00 150.00 250.00 Flavoring (grapefruit seed extract) 20.00 15.00 25.00 purified water 7353.85 7437.90 7257.80 total 10000.00 10000.00 10000.00

[0037] Ingredients Comparative Formulation Example 1 Weight of each ingredient (g) Comparative Formulation Example 2 Weight of raw material (g) Comparative Formulation Example 3 Weight of raw material (g) Haematococcus pluvialis extract Example 1 Composite 1.00 Example 1 Composite 1.00 Example 1 Composite 1.00 Myrrh resin extract 3.00 3.00 3.00 Sea grape extract 2.80 2.80 2.80 Oak moss extract 3.00 3.00 3.00 Green tea extract 2.00 2.00 2.00 Lactoferrin 0.10 0.10 0.10 Peppermint oil 10.10 10.10 10.10 Eucalyptus oil Fourth Brother 5.00 Fifth Brother 0.00 Sixth Brother 1.00 Calendula extract 3.00 0.00 1.00 Chamomile extract 3.00 0.00 1.00 Papain 0.10 1.05 0.00 protease 0.10 1.05 0.00 Lysozyme 1.00 0.00 2.10 ethanol 2000.00 1900.00 1900.00 sodium bicarbonate 50.00 50.00 50.00 L-Menthol 1.00 1.00 1.00 glycerin 250.00 250.00 170.00 Cocamidopropyl Betaine 50.00 150.00 200.00 sodium cocoyl glutamate 70.00 0.00 70.00 Floxamer 407 60.00 60.00 0.00 Hydrogenated castor oil 200.00 290.00 300.00 Flavoring (grapefruit seed extract) 20.00 20.00 20.00 purified water 7264.80 7254.90 7261.90 total 10000.00 10000.00 10000.00

[0038] Ingredients Comparative Formulation Example 4 Weight of each ingredient (g) Comparative Formulation Example 5 Weight of each ingredient (g) Haematococcus pluvialis extract Comparative Example 3 Compound 1.00 Comparative Example 3 Compound 1.00 Myrrh resin extract 1.00 1.00 Sea grape extract 1.00 1.00 Oak moss extract 1.00 1.00 Green tea extract 0.50 0.50 Lactoferrin 1.00 1.00 Peppermint oil 16.50 16.50 Eucalyptus oil First brother 1.00 Fourth Brother 5.00 Calendula extract 1.00 3.00 Chamomile extract 1.00 3.00 Papain 0.05 0.10 protease 0.05 0.10 Lysozyme 0.05 1.00 ethanol 1900.00 2000.00 sodium bicarbonate 50.00 50.00 L-Menthol 1.00 1.00 glycerin 250.00 250.00 Cocamidopropyl Betaine 100.00 50.00 sodium cocoyl glutamate 50.00 70.00 Floxamer 407 50.00 60.00 Hydrogenated castor oil 200.00 200.00 Flavoring (grapefruit seed extract) 20.00 20.00 purified water 7353.85 7264.80 total 10000.00 10000.00

[0039] <Experimental Example 1. Confirmation of Antibacterial Effect>

[0040] The complexes of Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Examples 1 to 3 were dissolved in DMSO and diluted with PBS to obtain Streptococcus mutans ( Streptococcus mutans ) and Porphyromonas gingivalis ( Porphyromonas gingivalisThe antibacterial effect of ) against oral bacteria was confirmed. These oral bacteria were cultured on TSA (trypticase soy agar) medium supplemented with hemin menadione. Subsequently, each oral bacterium was cultured again on TSB (trypticase soy broth) supplemented with hemin menadione for bacterial culture, and after sufficient culture, the bacterial count was adjusted to an OD of 600 = 0.2 using a Spectrometer in 100 ml of TSB.

[0041] Afterwards, the complexes of Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Examples 1 to 3 were cultured in a 96-well plate to a final concentration of 1 μg / ml. In this 96-well plate, 100 ml of TSB (trypticase soy broth) containing the bacterial culture hemin menadione used in the present invention, 50 ml of each complex diluted solution, and 50 ml of strain diluted solution were sequentially added, and the mixtures were cultured at 37°C for 24 hours while measuring the absorbance value using a UV-spectrophotometer every 4 hours.

[0042] Afterwards, the turbidity of the bacterial strains was checked on the bacterial growth curve at 4-hour intervals, and the degree of change was expressed based on the number of bacteria compared to the untreated group, the number of bacteria in each treatment group at different times, and the degree of culture, i.e., the bacterial state, stagnation, and degree of growth of the culture.

[0043] condition Antimicrobial activity (%) against Streptococcus mutans Antimicrobial activity (%) against Porphyromonas gingivalis Incubation time 4h 8h 12h 16h 20h 24h 4h 8h 12h 16h 20h 24h Example 1 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 Example 2 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 Example 3 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 Comparative Example 1 99.9 99.9 84.2 62.1 32.1 6.5 99.9 99.9 72.9 54.2 23.6 10.5 Comparative Example 2 99.9 99.9 80.1 59.0 36.3 8.1 99.9 99.9 73.2 57.3 20.9 12.0 Comparative Example 3 99.9 99.9 83.4 63.1 23.2 6.2 99.9 99.9 71.0 52.1 25.6 11.6

[0044] Referring to the results in Table 5 above, it is confirmed that the complexes of Examples 1 to 3 of the present invention strongly inhibit the growth of oral bacteria for 24 hours, whereas the complexes of Comparative Examples 1 to 3 do not reach this level. This growth inhibition of the complexes of Examples 1 to 3 continued even after 96 hours, and thus it can be seen that the minimum growth inhibitory concentration of these complexes is at least 1 μg / ml or less.

[0045] Meanwhile, among the aforementioned raw materials, extracts of other lichen plants, such as umbrella moss, frost moss, and Icelandic moss, were used in preliminary experiments instead of oak moss extract; however, since no synergistic antibacterial efficacy was observed with each raw material, they were deemed unsuitable for the main experiment, and thus oak moss extract was used as the raw material for the present invention. The same was true for the subsequent antifungal experiment.

[0046] <Experimental Example 2. Antifungal Test against Candida and Acinetobacter Strains Causing Stomatitis>

[0047] Each composition contains Candida albicans, one of the causative bacteria of stomatitis ( Candida albicans ) and Acinetobacter John Sonny( Acinetobacter johnsonii We confirmed whether it has antifungal and antibacterial efficacy against ).

[0048] To this end, the concentration of each composition was also adjusted to 1 μg / ml, and the experiment was conducted in the manner of Experimental Example 1, wherein Candida albicans cultured in SDB (Sabouraud Dextrose Broth) was used and Acinetobacter johnsonii cultured in BHIB (Brain Heart Infusion Broth) was used.

[0049] condition Antifungal efficacy (%) against Candida albicans Antifungal efficacy (%) against Acinetobacter johnsonii Incubation time 4h 8h 12h 16h 20h 24h 4h 8h 12h 16h 20h 24h Example 1 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 Example 2 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 Example 3 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 Comparative Example 1 99.9 99.9 85.5 72.5 63.0 40.1 99.9 99.9 78.0 62.3 55.2 38.0 Comparative Example 2 99.9 99.9 81.2 71.3 65.9 42.2 99.9 99.9 75.3 65.9 52.6 34.4 Comparative Example 3 99.9 99.9 84.0 74.0 63.7 46.6 99.9 99.9 74.2 62.1 54.3 35.2

[0050] As a result, it was confirmed that the complexes of Examples 1 to 3 also strongly inhibited the growth of Candida albicans and Acinetobacter johnsonii in the oral cavity for 24 hours. This growth inhibition by the complexes of Examples 1 to 3 continued even after 96 hours, and thus it can be seen that the minimum growth inhibitory concentration of these complexes is at least 1 μg / ml or less.

[0051] <Experimental Example 2. Evaluation of Sulfur Compound Removal>

[0052] Next, the removal of sulfur compounds, one of the causes of bad breath, was evaluated. Participants were individuals who had worn a mouse splint for at least one month, with three participants per experimental group. Starting one hour before the experiment, participants were instructed to restrict food and beverage intake and brush their teeth. At this time, it was confirmed that their oral odor conditions were similar.

[0053] For the experiment, raw garlic juice was prepared, and the mouse splints worn by the participants were immersed in the raw garlic juice for 1 minute. The immersed splints were removed, and the halitosis with the scent of raw garlic was measured using a halimeter. At this time, the average halitosis score was 214.3±2.8, confirming that the garlic scent overwhelmingly dominated the halitosis.

[0054] Next, each splint was cleaned for 3 minutes using the composites of Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Examples 1 to 3, and the splints were put back on. After 30 minutes, the participants' bad breath was measured again to confirm each result. Each value is the result when converted into a removal rate (%) based on the bad breath when the splint was put on immediately after being immersed in raw garlic.

[0055] division Bad breath removal rate (%) Example 1 75.4 Example 2 56.3 Example 3 57.2 Comparative Example 1 39.3 Comparative Example 2 45.8 Comparative Example 3 39.2

[0056] As shown in Table 7, when cleaning the splint using the compounds of Examples 1 to 3 in each user group, it can be confirmed that the removal rate of the characteristic garlic scent was very high at 50 to 80%, and it can be seen that the compounds have an excellent effect in preventing bad breath that may occur due to the use of the splint or can increase the deodorization / removal rate of bad breath.

[0057] <Experimental Example 3. Confirmation of Stability of Formulation Composition>

[0058] In order for the composition for cleaning oral appliances to be used stably while maintaining antibacterial / antifungal efficacy for a long period, the components and content of each excipient suitable for formulation were identified. To this end, the compositions of Formulation Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Formulation Examples 1 to 3 were stored for a total of 3 months using an 8-hour cycling method at high temperature conditions of 45°C, room temperature of 25°C, and low temperature of 4°C, and each composition was diluted 1000 times.

[0059] Afterwards, Streptococcus mutans cultured in the same way as in Experimental Example 1 ( Streptococcus mutans ), Porphyromonas gingivalis( Porphyromonas gingivalis ), Candida albicans( Candida albicans ), Acinetobacter John Sonny( Acinetobacter johnsonii The growth inhibitory activity against oral bacteria / fungi was confirmed by adding 1g of each diluted solution to 100g of the culture solution and incubating at 37℃ for 24 hours.

[0060] condition Antimicrobial activity (%) against Streptococcus mutans Antimicrobial activity (%) against Porphyromonas gingivalis Antifungal activity (%) against Candida albicans Antifungal activity (%) against Acinetobacter johnsonii Formulation Example 1 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 Formulation Example 2 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 Formulation Example 3 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 Comparative Formulation Example 1 34.4 29.1 25.5 12.3 Comparative Formulation Example 2 21.4 18.2 15.4 13.5 Comparative Formulation Example 3 24.2 15.4 14.5 11.2

[0061] Upon verification, in the group to which the diluted compositions of Formulation Examples 1 to 3 were added, almost no growth of each oral bacteria and fungus was observed; however, Comparative Formulation Examples 1 to 3 showed significantly lower efficacy in inhibiting the growth of oral bacteria and fungi, despite the only difference being that different excipients were applied to the same complex of Example 1. Comparative Formulation Examples 4 and 5 were not presented as their efficacy was lower compared to Comparative Formulation Example 3.

[0062] <Experimental Example 4. Confirmation of Prevention of Plaque and Tartar Formation and Halitosis Suppression>

[0063] When oral appliances are worn for a long time, foreign substances and oral epithelial cells accumulate, causing plaque and tartar to form on the appliance just like they do on the teeth, which leads to bad breath, cavities, and periodontitis.

[0064] Accordingly, groups of 10 individuals each who regularly use oral devices such as removable braces, temporomandibular joint orthodontics, bruxism prevention devices, and dentures were formed. Using the composite of Example 1 and Comparative Example 1 and the composition of Formulation Example 1, the ability to prevent tartar formation and the ability to suppress bad breath were compared before and after use, and the results were expressed using a 5-point scale. (5 points: Very good, 4 points: Good, 3 points: Average, 2 points: Poor, 1 point: Very poor)

[0065] condition ability to prevent plaque and tartar formation Bad breath suppression ability Example 1 4.1 4.0 Comparative Example 1 3.4 3.2 Formulation Example 1 4.1 3.9

[0066] As a result, it can be confirmed that each user is very satisfied with the use of the oral appliance cleaning compound or composition manufactured in the present invention, and it can be understood that a composition containing excipients, such as Formulation Example 1, has sufficient efficacy to maintain excellent oral hygiene and cleanliness as well as antibacterial efficacy, and thus it can be seen that functions such as antibacterial and cleaning properties are well maintained during formulation.

Claims

Claim 1 An oral appliance cleaning composition characterized by comprising, as an active ingredient, a complex containing Haematococcus pluvialis extract, myrrh resin extract, sea grape extract, oak moss extract, green tea extract, lactoferrin, and peppermint oil. Claim 2 A dental appliance cleaning composition according to claim 1, characterized in that the compound has plaque removal efficacy. Claim 3 In claim 1, the above-mentioned compound is Streptococcus mutans, a bacterium that causes tooth decay in the oral cavity ( Streptococcus mutans An oral appliance cleaning composition characterized by having sterilization and antibacterial efficacy against ). Claim 4 In claim 1, the above complex is Porphyromonas gingivalis, a bad breath-causing bacterium ( Porphyromonas gingivalis An oral appliance cleaning composition characterized by having sterilization and antibacterial efficacy against ). Claim 5 In claim 1, the above-mentioned compound is Candida albicans, a causative agent of stomatitis ( Candida albicans An oral appliance cleaning composition characterized by having antifungal efficacy against ). Claim 6 In claim 1, the above-mentioned compound is Acinetobacter johnsonii, a causative agent of stomatitis ( Acinetobacter johnsonii An oral appliance cleaning composition characterized by having antifungal efficacy against ). Claim 7 An oral appliance cleaning composition according to claim 1, characterized in that the complex comprises eucalyptus oil, calendula extract, chamomile extract, papain, protease, lysozyme, ethanol, sodium bicarbonate, L-menthol, glycerin, cocamidopropyl betaine, sodium cocoyl glutamate, floxamer 407, hydrogenated castor oil, fragrance, and purified water. Claim 8 A dental cleaning agent composition according to claim 1, characterized in that the composition prevents the formation of tartar on the outside of the dental device. Claim 9 An oral device cleaning composition according to claim 1, characterized in that the oral device is selected from a dental brace, an orthodontic brace, a temporomandibular joint orthodontic brace, a bruxism prevention device, or a denture.