Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32650754›Full record

SynthesisBMC oral health2020

Efficacy of propolis-based mouthwashes on dental plaque and gingival inflammation: a systematic review.

Esam Halboub, Sadeq A Al-Maweri, Mohammed Al-Wesabi, Ahlam Al-Kamel, Anas Shamala, Amani Al-Sharani, Pradeep Koppolu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Differential Gene Expression ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Mouthwashes: Alternatives and Future Directions.International dental journal · 2023
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Esam HalboubDepartment of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jizan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Sadeq A Al-MaweriDepartment of Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana'a University, Sana'a, Yemen.
Mohammed Al-WesabiDepartment of Preventive and Biomedical Science, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Science and Technology, Sana'a, Yemen. malwossabi@gmail.com.
Ahlam Al-KamelDepartment of Preventive and Biomedical Science, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Science and Technology, Sana'a, Yemen.
Anas ShamalaDepartment of Preventive and Biomedical Science, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Science and Technology, Sana'a, Yemen.
Amani Al-SharaniDepartment of Preventive and Biomedical Science, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Science and Technology, Sana'a, Yemen.
Pradeep KoppoluDepartment of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
University of Science and Technology · YEAlfaisal University · SADar Al Uloom University · SASana'a University · YE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic review of randomized clinical trials aimed to evaluate the available evidence regarding the efficacy of propolis-based mouthwash on dental plaque and gingival inflammation.

methodsPubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to November 2019. Clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of propolis mouthwashes compared with chlorhexidine (CHX) were included. The primary outcomes comprised dental plaque and/or gingival inflammation. Two authors assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. Due to marked heterogeneity of the available data, studies were assessed qualitatively, and no metaanalysis was performed.

resultsNine clinical trials, comprising 333 subjects, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Most of the included studies showed high risk of bias. Overall, propolis mouthwashes showed good efficacy on plaque and gingivitis in all of the included studies. Out of the eight studies that reported on plaque index, 5 studies found equal efficacy of propolis and CHX in reducing plaque, two studies found superior efficacy in favor of CHX, while one study found superior efficacy in favor of propolis. Six studies assessed gingival inflammation outcome, four of which reported better results with propolis, while two studies reported comparable results.

conclusionsThe results suggest that propolis-based mouthwashes have potential benefits in reducing plaque and gingival inflammation. However, methodological limitations along with small sample sizes in some of the included studies weaken the strength of the evidence. Therefore, further well-designed clinical trials with large sample sizes and adequate follow-up period are recommended to discern the efficacy of propolis mouthwash on plaque and gingivitis.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidineCross-Over StudiesDental PlaqueDental Plaque IndexDouble-Blind MethodGingivitisHumansInflammationMouthwashesPropolisSingle-Blind MethodAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidineMouthwashesPropolisChlorhexidineEfficacyGingivitisPlaquePropolis mouthwash

Identifiers

PMID32650754
PMCPMC7350560
OpenAlexW3041763880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.