IADR Abstract Archives
Efficacy and safety of propolis for treating recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objectives:
Objective is to assess the effects and safety of propolis regarding healing time when compared to conventional, alternative, no treatment or placebo in patients with RAS.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive online search of Medline (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Dentistry & Oral Sciences (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (https://trialsearch.who.int/), clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/), and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and manually searched the bibliographies of the included studies. The review included no time or language limitations in randomised controlled trials. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO, registration number.
Data collection and analysis: We independently searched for eligible studies, extracted data, and evaluated the potential for bias in the included studies. We used Review Manager 5 to conduct a random-effects meta-analysis and subgroup analyses to assess considerable heterogeneity. We used the GRADE Pro system to assess the quality of the evidence related to the primary outcomes, and we summarised the findings in a table.
Results: A total of 10 randomised control studies were included in the systematic review, and a meta-analysis showed that Propolis compared to a placebo or alternative treatment, showed minimal short-term effects on healing in patients with RAS. However, minimal results were noticed on pain, redness and recurrence. Minimal adverse effects were noted.
Conclusions: To determine the true benefit of Propolis for treating RAS, we need well-designed, adequately-powered, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the propolis source, preparation, compositions, dosages, routes of administration and reporting are standardised. Future research should also focus on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with larger sample sizes to strengthen the evidence base and provide more robust conclusions about the efficacy of propolis in treating RAU. The majority of studies included in the review lasted relatively short periods. More extensive studies, including monitoring for any potential cumulative adverse effects, are necessary to ensure the safety profile of propolis in long-term use.
Objective is to assess the effects and safety of propolis regarding healing time when compared to conventional, alternative, no treatment or placebo in patients with RAS.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive online search of Medline (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Dentistry & Oral Sciences (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (https://trialsearch.who.int/), clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/), and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and manually searched the bibliographies of the included studies. The review included no time or language limitations in randomised controlled trials. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO, registration number.
Data collection and analysis: We independently searched for eligible studies, extracted data, and evaluated the potential for bias in the included studies. We used Review Manager 5 to conduct a random-effects meta-analysis and subgroup analyses to assess considerable heterogeneity. We used the GRADE Pro system to assess the quality of the evidence related to the primary outcomes, and we summarised the findings in a table.
Results: A total of 10 randomised control studies were included in the systematic review, and a meta-analysis showed that Propolis compared to a placebo or alternative treatment, showed minimal short-term effects on healing in patients with RAS. However, minimal results were noticed on pain, redness and recurrence. Minimal adverse effects were noted.
Conclusions: To determine the true benefit of Propolis for treating RAS, we need well-designed, adequately-powered, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the propolis source, preparation, compositions, dosages, routes of administration and reporting are standardised. Future research should also focus on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with larger sample sizes to strengthen the evidence base and provide more robust conclusions about the efficacy of propolis in treating RAU. The majority of studies included in the review lasted relatively short periods. More extensive studies, including monitoring for any potential cumulative adverse effects, are necessary to ensure the safety profile of propolis in long-term use.