Camillo Anauate Netto1, Maria Cristina Marcucci2, Niraldo Paulino2, Andrea Anido-Anido1, Ricardo Amore1, Sergio de Mendonça3, Laurindo Borelli Neto1, Walter Antonio Bretz4. 1. Biomaterials Research Group - School of Dentistry - UNIBAN Bandeirante Anhanguera University - São Paulo - SP - Brazil. 2. Professional Masters Program in Pharmacy - School of Pharmacy - UNIBAN Bandeirante Anhanguera University - São Paulo - SP - Brazil. 3. Microbiology Research Group - Professional Masters Program in Pharmacy - UNIBAN Bandeirante Anhanguera University - São Paulo - SP - Brazil. 4. Department of Cariology & Comprehensive Care - College of Dentistry - New York University - New York-NY - USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial the effects of typified propolis and chlorhexidine rinses on salivary levels of mutans streptococci (MS) and lactobacilli (LACT). METHODS:One hundred patients were screened for salivary levels of MS >100,000 CFUs/mL of saliva. All patients presented with at least one cavitated decayed surface. Sixty patients met entry criteria. Subjects were adults 18-55 years old. After restoration of cavitated lesions patients were randomized to 3 experimental groups: 1) PROP-alcohol-free 2% typified propolis rinse (n = 20); 2) CHX- 0.12% chlorhexidine rinse; 3) PL-placebo mouthrinse. Patients rinsed unsupervised 15 mL of respective rinses twice a day for 1 min for 28 days. Patients were assessed for the salivary levels of MS (Dentocult SM) and LACT (Dentocult LB) at baseline, 7-day, 14-day, and at 28-day visits (experimental effects) and at 45-day visit (residual effects). General linear models were employed to analyze the data. RESULTS: PROP was superior to CHX at 14-day and 28-day visits in suppressing the salivary levels of MS (p < .05). PROP was superior to PL at all visits (p < .01). The residual effects of PROP in suppressing the salivary levels of MS could still be observed at the 45-day visit, where significant differences between PROP and CHX (p < .05), were demonstrated. PROP was significantly superior than CHX in suppressing the levels of salivary LACT at the 28-day visit (p < .05). CONCLUSION:Typified propolis rinse was effective in suppressing cariogenic infections in caries-active patients when compared to existing and placebo therapies.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial the effects of typified propolis and chlorhexidine rinses on salivary levels of mutans streptococci (MS) and lactobacilli (LACT). METHODS: One hundred patients were screened for salivary levels of MS >100,000 CFUs/mL of saliva. All patients presented with at least one cavitated decayed surface. Sixty patients met entry criteria. Subjects were adults 18-55 years old. After restoration of cavitated lesions patients were randomized to 3 experimental groups: 1) PROP-alcohol-free 2% typified propolis rinse (n = 20); 2) CHX- 0.12% chlorhexidine rinse; 3) PL-placebo mouthrinse. Patients rinsed unsupervised 15 mL of respective rinses twice a day for 1 min for 28 days. Patients were assessed for the salivary levels of MS (Dentocult SM) and LACT (Dentocult LB) at baseline, 7-day, 14-day, and at 28-day visits (experimental effects) and at 45-day visit (residual effects). General linear models were employed to analyze the data. RESULTS:PROP was superior to CHX at 14-day and 28-day visits in suppressing the salivary levels of MS (p < .05). PROP was superior to PL at all visits (p < .01). The residual effects of PROP in suppressing the salivary levels of MS could still be observed at the 45-day visit, where significant differences between PROP and CHX (p < .05), were demonstrated. PROP was significantly superior than CHX in suppressing the levels of salivary LACT at the 28-day visit (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Typified propolis rinse was effective in suppressing cariogenic infections in caries-activepatients when compared to existing and placebo therapies.
Authors: J D B Featherstone; J M White; C I Hoover; M Rapozo-Hilo; J A Weintraub; R S Wilson; L Zhan; S A Gansky Journal: Caries Res Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Fulgêncio Antônio Santos; Esther Margarida A Bastos; Paulo Henrique Rodrigues; Milton de Uzeda; Maria Auxiliadora R de Carvalho; Luiz de Macedo Farias; Elizabeth Spangler Andrade Moreira Journal: Anaerobe Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 3.331
Authors: Bernard J Moncla; Peter W Guevara; James A Wallace; Maria C Marcucci; Jacques E Nor; Walter A Bretz Journal: Z Naturforsch C J Biosci Date: 2012 May-Jun
Authors: Karolina Wiatrak; Tadeusz Morawiec; Rafał Rój; Anna Mertas; Agnieszka Machorowska-Pieniążek; Patryk Kownacki; Marta Tanasiewicz; Małgorzata Skucha-Nowak; Stefan Baron; Tomasz Piekarz; Maciej Wrzoł; Mateusz Bogacz; Jacek Kasperski; Iwona Niedzielska Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Edilson Martins Rodrigues Neto; Lídia Audrey Rocha Valadas; Patrícia Leal Dantas Lobo; Said Gonçalves da Cruz Fonseca; Francisco Vagnaldo Fechine; Mara Assef Leitão Lotif; Mary Anne Medeiros Bandeira; Julia Fontinele Mendonça; Karianne Marques de Mendonça; Marta Maria de França Fonteles Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Tadeusz Morawiec; Anna Mertas; Robert D Wojtyczka; Iwona Niedzielska; Arkadiusz Dziedzic; Anna Bubiłek-Bogacz; Jakub Sender; Jacek Wróbel; Marta Tanasiewicz; Piotr Wesołowski; Wojciech Król Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 3.411