Article Data

  • Views 694
  • Dowloads 153

Original Research

Open Access

Propolis and Commonly Used Intracanal Irrigants. Comparative Evaluation of Inflammatory Potential

  • Jolly M1,*,
  • Singh N1
  • Rathore M1
  • Tandon S1
  • Sharma S2

1Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Babu Banarasi Das College of Dental Sciences, Lucknow, India

2Department of Toxicology, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, India.

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.37.4.l4t31237p5723784 Vol.37,Issue 4,July 2013 pp.373-376

Published: 01 July 2013

*Corresponding Author(s): Jolly M E-mail: dr.mandeepjolly@gmail.com

Abstract

The present study evaluated the inflammatory/ irritant potential of propolis in comparison with commonly used intracanal irrigants such as chlorhexidine and calcium hydroxide, with normal saline solution as control using an animal (Wistar rats) model. Method: 2% Evans blue was intravenously injected into the lateral caudal vein. 0.1 ml each of the test solutions was intradermally injected into the experimental sites designed on their shaved backs. The animals were then sacrificed after 1½ and 3 hours respectively. Each piece of skin containing the injected solution was excised, immersed in 4ml formamide and incubated at 45°C for 72 hours. After filtration with glass wool, optical density(OD) was measured using a spectro¬photometer and analyzed statistically. Results: At 620 nm irrespective of time, the mean optical density with Calcium Hydroxide was found to be maximum (0.197±0.095) while that with DMSO Propolis was found to be minimum (0.070±0.016). Both at 90 min and 180 min, the mean optical density with Calcium Hydroxide was found to be maximum. Conclusions: On short term evaluation, maximum inflammation was seen with calcium hydroxide followed by chlorhexidine and DMSO extract of propolis. Minimum inflammation was seen with sterile physiologic saline. With progress of time, maximum inflammation was seen with calcium hydroxide followed by chlorhexidine and DMSO extract of propolis which was non-significant.

Keywords

propolis, intracanal irrigants, inflammatory potential, optical density

Cite and Share

Jolly M,Singh N,Rathore M,Tandon S,Sharma S. Propolis and Commonly Used Intracanal Irrigants. Comparative Evaluation of Inflammatory Potential. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2013. 37(4);373-376.

References

1. Ingle J.I. and Zeldow B.J. An evaluation of mechanical instrumentation and the negative culture in endodontic therapy. J Am Dent Assoc; 57:471, 1958.

2. Bretz W. A., Chiego D. J., Marcuccic M. C., Cunhad I., A. Custo´ diod, L. Schneidera G. Preliminary Report on the Effects of Propolis on Wound Healing in the Dental Pulp. Z. Naturforsch; 53c, 1045-1048, 1998.

3. Öztürk F., Kurt E., Übeyt Ü., Emiro L., Sami S., Sobaci G. Effect of Propolis on Endotoxin-Induced Uveitis in Rabbits. Jpn J Ophthalmol; 43:285–289, 1999.

4. Da Silva F.B., De Almeida J.M., Maria Galvão de Sousa Simone. Natural medicaments in endodontics – a comparative study of the anti-inflammatory action. Braz Oral Res; 18(2):174-9, 2004.

5. Udaka K, Takeuchi Y, Movat HZ. Simple method for quantitation of enhanced vascular permeability. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med; 133:1384-7, 1970.

6. Bernardo C.L.E., Souza I.A.F., Colavitti C., Garcia C. Própolis: cicatrizante e antibiótico natural. Rev Bras Enferm; 43(1/4):101-6, 1990.

7. Azevedo I.B.S., Sampaio R.F., Montes J.C., Contreras R.L.L. Tratamento de escaras de decúbito com própolis. Rev Bras Enferm; 39(2/3) :33-7, 1986.

8. Dobrowolski J.W., Vohora S.B., Sharma K., Shah S. A., Naqvi S.A.H., Dandiya P.C. Antibacterial, antifungal, antiamoebic, antiinflammatory and antipyretic studies on propolis bee products. J Ethnopharmacology 35, 77-82, 1991.

9. Hay K.D., Greig D.E. Propolis allergy: A cause of oral mucositis with ulceration. Oral Surc Oral Med Oral Pathol; 7O:S84-6, 1990.

10. Mirzoeva O.K., Calder P.C. The effect of propolis and its components on eicosanoid production during the inflammatory response. Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids; 55(6), 441-449, 1996.

11. Burdock G.A. Review of the Biological Properties and Toxicity of Bee Propolis (Propolis). Food and Chemical Toxicology; 36, 347-363, 1998.

12. Borrellia F., Maffiaa P., Pintoa L., Ianaroa A., Russo A., Capassoa F., Ialentia A. Phytochemical compounds involved in the anti-inflammatory effect of propolis extract. Fitoterapia 73(1), S53–S63, 2002.

13. Tanomaru JM, Leonardo MR, Tanomaru Filho M, Bonetti Filho I, Silva LA. Effect of different irrigation solutions and calcium hydroxide on bacterial LPS ; 36(11):733-9, 2003.

14. Jeansonne M.J., White R.R. A comparison of 2.0% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite as antimicrobial endodontic irrigants. J Endod; 20: 276-8, 1994. 15. White R.R., Hays G.L., Janer L.R. Residual antimicrobial activity after canal irrigation with chlorhexidine. J Endod;23: 229-231, 1997.

16. Leonardo M.R., Lia R.C.C., Esberard R.M., Benatti N.C. Immediate root canal filling: the use of cytophylactic substances and noncytotoxic solutions. J Endod; 10: 1-8, 1984.

17. Loe H, Schiott C.R. The effect of mouth rinses and topical application of chlorhexidine on the development of dental plaque and gingivites in man. J Periodont Res; 5: 79-83, 1970.

18. Southard S.R., Drisko C.L., Killoy W.J., Cobb C.M., Tira D.E. The effect of 2% chlorhexidine digluconate irrigation on clinical parameters and the level of Bacteroides gingivalis in periodontal pockets. J Periodont; 60, 302-309, 1989.

19. Blomlöf L, Lindskog S, Hammarström L. Influence of pulpal treatments on cell and tissue reactions in the marginal periodontium.J Periodontol; 59(9):577-83, 1988.

20. Holland R, Otoboni Filho J.A., Bernabe P.F., de SouzaV, Nery M.J., Dezan Junior E. Effect of root canal filling material and level of surgical injury on periodontal healing in dogs. Endod Dent Traumat; 14, 199-205, 1998.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top