ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry
Efficacy of Liquorice and Propolis Extract Used as Cavity Cleaning Agents against
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Activity of Licorice, Green Tea, Their Combined Extracts, and Sodium Fluoride Mouthwashes againstInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Article
- Nutraceutical prospects ofFood bioscience · 2022Article
- Susceptibility of Dental Caries Microcosm Biofilms to Photodynamic Therapy Mediated by Fotoenticine.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- The potential of glycyrrhizin and licorice extract in combating COVID-19 and associated conditions.Phytomedicine plus : international journal of phytotherapy and phytopharmacology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
introductionCavity disinfection before restoration aids in reducing the number of residual bacteria, thus, decreasing the rate of secondary caries. Propolis, at low concentrations, inhibits the growth of cariogenic bacteria. Liquorice roots are known to have antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties. AIM AND
objectivesEvaluation and comparison of antimicrobial efficacy of liquorice and propolis extract gels used as cavity cleaning agents against MATERIALS AND
methodsLiquorice and propolis extracts were converted into gels after recording the minimum inhibition concentration. Class I cavity was prepared on 135 extracted deciduous molars and subjected to inoculation with
resultsThe mean nonviable/viable bacterial count and the depth of penetration were found to be maximum in group I and minimum in group III. A statistically significant difference was found to be between groups I and II and groups I and III, while with groups II and III, it was nonsignificant at all 60, 120, and 180 seconds. The bacterial depth penetration between groups I and II at 180 seconds was nonsignificant. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Though liquorice showed better antimicrobial potential as compared to propolis extract, both can be used efficiently as cavity disinfectants. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Godbole E, Tyagi S,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.