| Literature DB >> 23258985 |
Xiaosong Liu1, Xiaobing Guan, Ruiyang Chen, Hong Hua, Yang Liu, Zhimin Yan.
Abstract
The study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an herbal extract of Yunnan Baiyao formulated in toothpaste as an alternative therapy for minor RAS. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (from March 2010 to March 2011) was conducted on a cohort of 227 minor RAS patients. The toothpaste containing Yunnan Baiyao was used twice daily as part of the patient's routine oral hygiene for 5 days. An assessment of ulcerative size and pain was recorded on day 0 (baseline), day 3, and day 5. Any noted adverse reactions were recorded. All data were analyzed using the SAS software 8.0. As a result, the toothpaste containing Yunnan Baiyao began to present noticeable effectiveness on ulcer healing (ulcer size) by day 3 (27.5% versus 15.8%, P < 0.05), which further improved by day 5 when compared to the placebo (66.4% versus 50.0%, P = 0.01). A significant difference in alleviating pain was noted on day 5 for those who used the toothpaste containing Yunnan Baiyao (66.4% versus 51.8%, P < 0.05). No side effects were noted as a result of the Yunnan Baiyao. Therefore, Yunnan Baiyao may provide an alternative therapy for minor ulcers by promoting healing.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23258985 PMCID: PMC3521495 DOI: 10.1155/2012/284620
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
The criteria of response to therapy.
| Criteria | Definition |
|---|---|
| EI = 100% | Either ulcer healed or pain disappeared |
| EI = 70–100% | More than 70% of either ulcer surface area closed or VAS value |
| decreased, including 70% but not 100% | |
| EI = 30–70% | More than 30% of either ulcer surface area closed or VAS value |
| decreased, including 30% but not 70% | |
| EI = 0–30% | Less than 30% of either ulcer surface area closed or VAS value |
| decreased |
The baseline demography data of the patients.
| Experimental group ( | Placebo group ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year) (mean ± SD)* | 31.9 ± 10.9 | 31.4 ± 11.8 | 0.75 |
| Gender** | 0.17 | ||
| Male | 22 (19.5%) | 31 (27.2%) | |
| Female | 91 (80.5%)) | 83 (72.8%) | |
| Duration of previous ulcer (day)* | 9.1 ± 3.0 | 9.4 ± 3.8 | 0.98 |
| Ulcer size (mm2) (mean ± SD)* | 4.5 ± 3.3 | 5.4 ± 4.3 | 0.21 |
| Ulcer pain (VAS)*** | 0.21 | ||
| 0 | 4 | 1 | |
| 1 | 8 | 6 | |
| 2 | 9 | 11 | |
| 3 | 23 | 25 | |
| 4 | 16 | 9 | |
| 5 | 27 | 23 | |
| 6 | 9 | 16 | |
| 7 | 9 | 14 | |
| 8 | 5 | 7 | |
| 9 | 2 | 1 | |
| 10 | 1 | 1 |
VAS: visual analog scale.
*: t-test was used in analysis of quantitative data, P > 0.05.
**: chi-square test was used in analysis of enumeration data, P > 0.05.
***: Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used in analysis of categorical data, P > 0.05.
The number of patients in experimental and placebo groups on day 3 and day 5 based on ulcer size.
| Day 3 | Day 5 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Experimental group (%) | Placebo group (%) | Experimental group (%) | Placebo group (%) | |||
| Number | 113 | 114 | 113 | 114 | ||
| Size (mean ± SD) | 3.4 ± 5.3 | 5.3 ± 6.5 | 0.01* | 2.1 ± 5.6 | 3.7 ± 6.0 | <0.01** |
| Significant improvement | 31 (27.4) | 18 (15.8) | 0.03*** | 75 (66.4) | 57 (50.0) | 0.01**** |
| EIsize = 100% | 11 (9.7) | 6 (5.3) | 39 (34.5) | 24 (21.1) | ||
| EIsize = 70–100% | 20 (17.7) | 12 (10.5) | 36 (31.9) | 33 (28.9) | ||
| Nonsignificant improvement | 82 (72.6) | 96 (84.2) | 38 (33.6) | 57 (50.0) | ||
| EIsize = 30–70% | 35 (31.0) | 38 (33.3) | 16 (14.2) | 21 (18.4) | ||
| EIsize = 0–30% | 47 (41.6) | 58 (50.9) | 22 (19.5) | 36 (31.6) | ||
*and **: P values represent the comparisons of ulcer size between groups on days 3 and 5, respectively.
***and ****: P values represent the comparisons of significant improvement and nonsignificant improvement on days 3 and 5, respectively.
( ): it represents percentage per group.
Figure 1A comparison of ulcer size between experimental and placebo groups for day 0, day 3, and day 5.
The number of patients in the placebo and experimental groups on day 3 and day 5 based on the level of pain.
| Day 3 | Day 5 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Experimental group (%) | Placebo group (%) | Experimental group (%) | Placebo group (%) | |||
| Number | 113 | 114 | 113 | 114 | ||
| Significant improvement | 28 (24.8) | 17 (14.9) | >0.05* | 75 (66.4) | 59 (51.8) | <0.05** |
| EIpain = 100% | 16 (14.2) | 6 (5.3) | 48 (42.5) | 45 (39.5) | ||
| EIpain = 70–100% | 12 (10.6) | 11 (9.6) | 27 (23.9) | 14 (12.3) | ||
| Nonsignificant improvement | 85 (75.2) | 97 (85.1) | 38 (33.6) | 55 (48.2) | ||
| EIpain = 30–70% | 34 (30.1) | 43 (37.7) | 24 (21.2) | 32 (28.1) | ||
| EIpain = 0–30% | 51 (45.1) | 54 (47.4) | 14 (12.4) | 23 (20.2) | ||
*and **: P values represent the comparisons of significant improvement between groups on days 3 and 5, respectively.