| Literature DB >> 29991918 |
Ehab M Elzayat1, Sayed H Auda1,2, Fars K Alanazi1, Mohamed H Al-Agamy1,3.
Abstract
This study assessed the wound healing potential and antimicrobial activity of henna, pomegranate and myrrh extract formulations and their blend in excision, and dead space wound models in rats in comparison to a marketed ointment (gentamycin). The natural extracts were used in ointment formulations alone or in a combination of three extracts at a total concentration of 15% w/w in medications. The percent of wound contraction in case of henna, myrrh, pomegranate, the blend and gentamycin (10 mg/kg) were 85.90-98.5%, 88.35-99.52%, 93.55-100%, 97.30-100%, and 90.25-100% from days 16 to 20, respectively. The blended formulation showed the highest increase in the percent of wound contraction and decrease in the epithelisation period compared to other formulations and showed comparable results to the standard ointment. The histological studies of excision biopsy at day 24 showed healed skin structures with normal epithelisation, the restoration of adnexa and fibrosis within the dermis in all of the formulation- and gentamycin-treated groups while the control group lagged behind in the formation of the amount of ground substance in the granulation tissue. The formulations showed antimicrobial activity against Candida, Staphylococcus aureus, mucous membrane infections and E. coli topical infections. The study proved the wound healing potential and antimicrobial activity of the herbal extract.Entities:
Keywords: Henna; Herbal extract; Hydrophilic ointment; Myrrh; Pomegranate; Wound healing
Year: 2018 PMID: 29991918 PMCID: PMC6035320 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2018.02.016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi Pharm J ISSN: 1319-0164 Impact factor: 4.330
The measurements of wound areas over a period of 24 days showing the percent of contraction among different formulations.
| External treatment (10 mg/kg, twice daily) | Wound area in mm2/rat (% contraction) | Epithelization period (days) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 day | 4th day | 8th day | 12th day | 16th day | 20th day | 24th day | ||
| Control (ointment base) | 545.35 ± 6.35 | 450.16 ± 7.36 | 325.32 ± 5.48 | 164.08 ± 8.18 | 80.74 ± 5.18 | 11.12 ± 0.63 | 2.4 ± 0.14 | 12.4 |
| 0 | 17.45 ± 1.51 | 40.34 ± 1.12 | 69.91 ± 1.67 | 85.19 ± 1.06 | 97.96 ± 0.13 | 99.55 ± 0.03 | ||
| Henna ointment | 546.82 ± 7.78 | 439.42 ± 6.79 | 301.28 ± 4.94 | 148.82 ± 4.81 | 77.09 ± 3.18 | 8 ± 0.73 | 1.04 ± 0.3 | 12.2 |
| 0 | 19.64 ± 1.24 | 44.90 ± 0.90 | 72.78 ± 0.88 | 85.90 ± 0.58 | 98.53 ± 0.13 | 99.80 ± 0.02 | ||
| Myrrh ointment | 545.02 ± 6.10 | 338.32 ± 3.93 | 282.36 ± 7.25 | 134.54 ± 3.70 | 63.45 ± 3.09 | 2.6 ± 0.36 | 0 | 11.8 |
| 0 | 37.92 ± 0.72 | 48.19 ± 1.33 | 75.31 ± 0.67 | 88.35 ± 5.6 | 99.52 ± 0.07 | 100 | ||
| Pomegranate ointment | 547.7 ± 6.70 | 318.52 ± 4.06 | 255.98 ± 2.28 | 112.54 ± 2.98 | 35.28 ± 3.17 | 0 | 0 | 11.4 |
| 0 | 41.8 ± 0.74 | 53.26 ± 0.41 | 79.45 ± 0.54 | 93.55 ± 0.58 | 100 | 100 | ||
| Blend ointment | 551.86 ± 9.62 | 279.62 ± 5.54 | 140.32 ± 8.1 | 62.54 ± 2.98 | 14.88 ± 3.31 | 0 | 0 | 9.8 |
| 0 | 49.33 ± 1 | 74.57 ± 1.46 | 88.66 ± 0.54 | 97.30 ± 0.6 | 100 | 100 | ||
| Gentamycin ointment | 552.06 ± 7.87 | 215.12 ± 4.05 | 118.24 ± 2.39 | 53.8 ± 3.73 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.4 |
| 0 | 61.03 ± 0.73 | 78.58 ± 0.43 | 90.25 ± 0.67 | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
Fig. 1Histopathology of skin at day 24 stained with H&E (100×), showing: (a) Skin of control rat showing ulceration and edema, early epithelisation and granulation tissue and abundance of mononuclear inflammatory cells, (b) & (c) Henna & Myrrh treated rats, respectively, showing large amount of granulation tissue, small number of mononuclear inflammatory cells, and restoration of adnexa and extensive fibrosis, (d), (e) & (f) Pomegranate, blend and gentamycin treated rats, respectively, showing healed skin structures with well formed, near to normal epidermis, restoration of adnexa, and extensive fibrosis and collagen tissue within the dermis.
Evaluation of antimicrobial activities of four hydrophilic ointments containing henna extract, myrrh extract, pomegranate extract and blend of the three extracts respectively by Cup plate diffusion method.
| Formulation | Cup plate diffusion method (mm) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gram-negative bacteria | Gram-positive bacteria | Yeast | ||||
| MRSA ATCC33591 | ||||||
| Control (ointment base) | NIL | NIL | NIL | NIL | NIL | NIL |
| Henna ointment | 20 | NZ | 26 | 25 | 20 | 30 |
| Myrrh ointment | 19 | NZ | 23 | 22 | 25 | 30 |
| Pomegranate ointment | 21 | NZ | 20 | 20 | 21 | 29 |
| Blend ointment | 18 | NZ | 25 | 25 | 25 | 30 |
| Garamycin ointment | 29 | 25 | 27 | 26 | 28 | ND |
| Imipenem 10 µg/disc | 30 | 25 | 35 | 30 | 30 | ND |
| Ketokonazole 25 µg/disc | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 35 |
NZ means no inhibition zone.
ND means not determined.
| Yellow Soft Paraffin | 52% |
| Bees wax | 3% |
| Liquid paraffin | 25% |
| Natural Extract | 15% |