| Literature DB >> 27018126 |
Hemant Kumar Nagar1, Amit Kumar Srivastava2, Rajnish Srivastava3, Madan Lal Kurmi1, Harinarayan Singh Chandel1, Mahendra Singh Ranawat4.
Abstract
Objectives. The present study was aimed at investigating the wound healing effect of ethanolic extract of Cestrum nocturnum (L.) leaves (EECN) using excision and incision wound model. Methods. Wistar albino rats were divided into five groups each consisting of six animals; group I (left untreated) considered as control, group II (ointment base treated) considered as negative control, group III treated with 5% (w/w) povidone iodine ointment (Intadine USP), which served as standard, group IV treated with EECN 2% (w/w) ointment, and group V treated with EECN 5% (w/w) ointment were considered as test groups. All the treatments were given once daily. The wound healing effect was assessed by percentage wound contraction, epithelialization period, and histoarchitecture studies in excision wound model while breaking strength and hydroxyproline content in the incision wound model. Result. Different concentration of EECN (2% and 5% w/w) ointment promoted the wound healing activity significantly in both the models studied. The high rate of wound contraction (P < 0.001), decrease in the period for epithelialization (P < 0.01), high skin breaking strength (P < 0.001), and elevated hydroxyproline content were observed in animal treated with EECN ointments when compared to the control and negative control group of animals. Histopathological studies of the EECN ointments treated groups also revealed the effectiveness in improved wound healing. Conclusions. Ethanolic extract of Cestrum nocturnum (EECN) leaves possesses a concentration dependent wound healing effect.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27018126 PMCID: PMC4785265 DOI: 10.1155/2016/9249040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pharm (Cairo) ISSN: 2090-9918
Percentage yield, phytochemical screening, and quantitative phytochemical standardization of EECN.
| Percentage yield | 11.78% (w/w) |
|---|---|
| Phytochemical screening | |
| Alkaloids | + |
| Flavonoids | + |
| Tannins | + |
| Glycosides | + |
| Triterpenoids | + |
| Carbohydrates | + |
| Steroids | − |
| Saponins | − |
|
| |
| Standardization of content of phytochemicals | |
| Total polyphenolic contenta | 238.64 ± 1.29 |
| Total flavonoid contentb | 61.39 ± 0.57 |
For phytochemical screening: (+) presence of phytoconstituents and (−) absence of phytoconstituents; values of standardization of the content of the phytochemicals represent mean ± SD (n = 3). aExpressed as mg of gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/g of the dry extract. bExpressed as mg of quercetin equivalents (QE)/g of the dry extract.
Figure 1Photographs of wound repair at different time interval in excision wound model in rats.
Effect of EECN on % wound contraction and epithelialization period of wound in excision wound model.
| Group | % wound contraction | Epithelialization period (days) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4th day | 8th day | 12th day | 16th day | ||
| Group I (untreated) | 4.39 ± 0.82 | 18.62 ± 0.69 | 42.62 ± 2.56 | 68.87 ± 0.91 | 19.16 ± 0.7 |
| Group II (ointment base treated) | 4.21 ± 0.19 | 19.48 ± 0.93 | 42.76 ± 1.36 | 71.2 ± 0.93 | 19.66 ± 0.66 |
| Group III (standard) | 14.55 ± 0.87 | 38.39 ± 0.46 | 67.38 ± 2.01 | 94.3 ± 0.43 | 17.33 ± 0.4 |
| Group IV (2% w/w, ointment) | 13.83 ± 1.0 | 31.11 ± 0.83 | 56.46 ± 0.79 | 80.21 ± 0.27 | 18.33 ± 0.22 |
| Group V (5% w/w, ointment) | 14.33 ± 0.94 | 34.82 ± 0.67 | 59.64 ± 1.18 | 93.58 ± 0.76 | 17.66 ± 0.7 |
All values are represented as mean ± SEM, n = 6 animals in each group. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons Test. a: significant difference as compared to untreated group (group I); b: significant difference as compared to ointment base treated group (group II); c: significant difference as compared to standard group (group III), and P < 0.01, P < 0.001.
Effect of EECN on tissue hydroxyproline content in excision wound model.
| Group | Dry weight of tissues (mg) | Hydroxyproline content ( |
|---|---|---|
| Group I (untreated) | 42.66 ± 1.13 | 27.50 ± 0.71 |
| Group II (ointment base treated) | 44.31 ± 0.8 | 28.13 ± 0.92 |
| Group II (standard) | 44.33 ± 2.0 | 34.50 ± 0.84 |
| Group III (2% w/w, ointment) | 41.66 ± 1.22 | 31.83 ± 0.74 |
| Group IV (5% w/w, ointment) | 39.0 ± 3.12 | 32.16 ± 0.65 |
All values are represented as mean ± SEM, n = 6 animals in each group. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons Test. a: significant difference as compared to untreated group (group I); b: significant difference as compared to ointment base treated group (group II), and P < 0.01, P < 0.001.
Effect of EECN on tensile strength of wound in incision wound model.
| Groups | Wound breaking strength (g) |
|---|---|
| Group I (untreated) | 168.35 ± 3.53 |
| Group II (ointment base treated) | 172.95 ± 1.24 |
| Group III (standard) | 210.76 ± 6.65 |
| Group IV (2% w/w, ointment) | 191.35 ± 6.43 |
| Group V (5% w/w, ointment) | 201.83 ± 4.98 |
All values are represented as mean ± SEM, n = 6 animals in each group. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons Test. a: significant difference as compared to untreated group (group I); b: significant difference as compared to ointment base treated group (group II); c: significant difference as compared to standard group (group III), and P < 0.05, P < 0.01, and P < 0.001.
Figure 2Photomicrograph of histopathological section of wound tissue of rats (stained with H&E, 40x magnification). (a) Histopathological section of group I (control) animal wound tissue. (b) Histopathological section of group II (ointment base treated) animal wound tissue. (c) Histopathological section of group III (standard) animal wound tissue. (d) Histopathological section of group IV (2% w/w ointment) animal wound tissue. (e) Histopathological section of group V (5% w/w ointment) animal wound tissue.