| Literature DB >> 31781612 |
Saad Abdulrahman Hussain1, Hazha Abdulah Mohammed Ameen2, Mohammed Omer Mohammed2, Khadija Muhamed Ahmed3, Rebaz Hama-Gareb Ali4, Banaz Mubarak Safar5, Kamal Ahmed Saeed6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study aims at evaluating the beneficial effect of Nigella sativa (NS) oil mouth rinse in the management of chemotherapy- (CT-) induced oral mucositis (OM) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31781612 PMCID: PMC6875195 DOI: 10.1155/2019/3619357
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Flowchart of the study.
Demographic characteristic of the participants.
| Parameter | Control | NS oil |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) (mean ± SD) | 37.2 ± 14.4 | 33.8 ± 13.9 | 0.38 |
|
| |||
| Age ranges (years), | |||
| <25 | 5 (20) | 9 (33.3) | |
| 25–34 | 8 (32) | 9 (33.3) | |
| 35–44 | 5 (20) | 2 (7.4) | |
| ≥45 | 7 (28) | 7 (26.0) | 0.52 |
|
| |||
| Gender, | |||
| Male | 11 (44) | 16 (59.3) | |
| Female | 14 (56) | 11 (40.7) | 0.27 |
|
| |||
| BMI, | |||
| Normal | 11 (44) | 13 (48.1) | |
| Overweight | 6 (24) | 5 (18.5) | |
| Obese | 8 (32) | 9 (33.3) | 0.89 |
|
| |||
| Smoking habit, | |||
| No | 18 (72) | 21 (77.8) | |
| Yes | 7 (28) | 6 (22.2) | 0.63 |
|
| |||
| Family history, | |||
| Negative | 22 (88) | 24 (88.9) | |
| Positive | 3 (12) | 3 (11.1) | |
|
| |||
| Dental status, | |||
| Good | 5 (24) | 5 (18.5) | |
| Fair | 12 (48) | 16 (59.3) | |
| Bad | 7 (28) | 6 (22.2) | 0.72 |
|
| |||
| Salivary IL-6 (pg/ml) (mean ± SD) | 159.8 ± 57.7 | 106.7 ± 47.2 | 0.52 |
| Salivary TNF- | 56.8 ± 24.8 | 38.3 ± 14.1 | 0.51 |
AML, acute myeloid leukemia; BMI, body mass index; NS, Nigella sativa.
Figure 2Effect of Nigella sativa oil (NS) mouth rinse on the (a) WHO and (b) NCI scales of chemotherapy-induced OM in AML patients. Values are presented as mean ± SD; values with nonidentical letters (a, b) within the same group are significantly different (P < 0.05); significantly different compared with the control at the same time point (P < 0.05).
Figure 3Effect of Nigella sativa oil (NS) mouth rinse on the (a) OMAS-E, (b) OMAS-U, (c) total OMAS, and (d) average OMAS of chemotherapy-induced OM in AML patients. Values are presented as mean ± SD; values with nonidentical letters (a, b) within the same group are significantly different (P < 0.05); significantly different compared with the control at the same time point (P < 0.05).
Effects of NS oil mouth rinse on the diet type consumed by the AML patients during chemotherapy.
| Diet type | Control | NS oil | Total |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||
| Function—day 0 | ||||
| Normal | 25 (100) | 27 (100) | 52 (100) | >0.999 |
|
| ||||
| Function—day 4 | ||||
| Normal | 20 (80) | 27 (100) | 47 (90.4) | |
| Soft | 3 (12) | 0 (0) | 3 (5.8) | |
| Liquid | 2 (8) | 0 (0) | 2 (3.8) | 0.02 |
|
| ||||
| Function—day 12 | ||||
| Normal | 15 (60) | 27 (100) | 42 (80.7) | |
| Soft | 4 (16) | 0 (0) | 4 (7.7) | |
| Liquid | 6 (24) | 0 (0) | 6 (11.6) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Function—day 18 | ||||
| Normal | 18 (72) | 27 (100) | 45 (86.5) | |
| Soft | 4 (16) | 0 (0) | 4 (7.7) | |
| Liquid | 3 (12) | 0 (0) | 3 (5.8) | 0.004 |
|
| ||||
| Function—day 28 | ||||
| Normal | 20 (80) | 26 (96.3) | 46 (88.5) | |
| Soft | 2 (8) | 0 (0) | 2 (3.8) | |
| Liquid | 3 (12) | 1 (3.7) | 4 (7.7) | 0.159 |
Notes: values are simple frequency and percentage, and mean ± SD.
Figure 4Effect of Nigella sativa oil (NS) mouth rinse on the pain score of chemotherapy-induced OM in AML patients. Values are presented as mean ± SEM; values with nonidentical letters (a, b) within the same group are significantly different (P < 0.05); significantly different compared with the control at the same time point (P < 0.05).
Figure 5Effect of Nigella sativa oil (NS) mouth rinse on (a) salivary IL-6 concentration and (b) salivary TNF-α concentration of chemotherapy-induced OM in AML patients. Values are presented as mean ± SD; values with nonidentical letters within the same group are significantly different (P < 0.05); significantly different compared with the control at the same time point (P < 0.05).