Effects of Propolis and Persica Mouthwashes on Minor Aphthous Ulcers: A Comparative Study

Alemrajabi, Mohammadsadegh; Sadrzadeh-Afshar, Maryam-Sadat; dastorani, mahdi; Barjestehnia, Meysam

doi:10.52547/jorjanibiomedj.10.1.56

Cited by 1 publication

(15 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This review comprised ten RCTs published between 2003 and 2022 [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. Figure 1 depicts the PRISMA flow chart.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of topical propolis [30][31][32][33][34][35][36], and three evaluated systemic propolis [37][38][39]. All except one study [33] was conducted as a singlecentre study in a clinical setting affiliated with a university, and only one study failed to explicitly mention where it was conducted [36]. Of the ten studies, one study per location, as indicated, was conducted in China [39], Greece [32], Iraq [30], Morocco [35], Saudi Arabia [33], Sudan [31], and the USA [37], and three studies were conducted in Iran [30,34,36].…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study [36] investigating the efficacy of propolis used propolis as a control, and the remaining studies included propolis as an intervention. All studies, including topical applications, used different propolis formulations in different percentages and carriers.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All studies, including topical applications, used different propolis formulations in different percentages and carriers. Three studies used propolis as a mouthwash [30,34,36], two as a paste [31,33], and two as an aerosol spray [32,35]. All participants who took systemic propolis (in three studies) took it in tablet form once or twice daily.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Efficacy and Safety of Propolis for Treating Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis (RAS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Roberts,

Kallon,

Schoonees

2024

Dentistry Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The systematic review assessed the efficacy and safety of propolis for treating recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS). The review adopted the PICO framework to examine the effects of topical and systemic propolis on RAS while also comparing it to established treatments, placebos, or no treatment. The main focus was on the healing time, pain levels, adverse effects, the likelihood of ulcer recurrence, and accompanying symptoms such as redness. The team included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, excluding case reports and studies on oral ulcers other than RAS. In May 2022, the review team comprehensively searched nine databases and trial registries following the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database under the registration number CRD42022327123. Two review authors conducted a comprehensive and autonomous search for pertinent papers and extracted essential data. Where data permitted, the team utilised Review Manager 5 to conduct a random-effects meta-analysis, assessing the risk of bias and heterogeneity of the included studies. Where possible, the GRADE Pro programme was used to assess the certainty of the evidence for all the outcomes. This review included 10 RCTs, comprising 825 participants aged between 18 and 69 years. Seven studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of propolis when applied topically, all of which used different formulations, concentrations, and carriers. The remaining three studies assessed systemic administration in tablet form. The duration of investigations ranged from 5 days to 3 years. The review team classified two studies as having an overall ‘high risk’ of bias, while the remaining studies were categorised as having an overall ‘uncertain risk’. The overall certainty of the evidence was ‘very low’. The results indicate that topical and systemic propolis may decrease the duration of healing, alleviate pain, and reduce redness in patients with RAS compared to a placebo. However, the certainty of the evidence is very low. These may be due to the high risk of bias, substantial heterogeneity, and limited sample sizes in the included studies. For these reasons, the results of this review should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the limited number of adverse effects observed suggests that propolis may have a favourable safety profile when used for a short period in treating RAS.

show abstract

“…This review comprised ten RCTs published between 2003 and 2022 [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. Figure 1 depicts the PRISMA flow chart.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%