Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36267530›Full record

ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2022

Bioinductive and anti-inflammatory properties of Propolis and Biodentine on SHED.

Yogesh Kale, Swapnil Yadav, Mahesh Dadpe, Prasanna Dahake, Shrikant Kendre

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Repair of critical bone defects with two bioceramics in rat calvaria.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yogesh KaleDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, MIDSR Dental College and Hospital, Latur, Maharashtra 413512, India.
Swapnil YadavDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, MIDSR Dental College and Hospital, Latur, Maharashtra 413512, India.
Mahesh DadpeDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, MIDSR Dental College and Hospital, Latur, Maharashtra 413512, India.
Prasanna DahakeDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, MIDSR Dental College and Hospital, Latur, Maharashtra 413512, India.
Shrikant KendreDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, MIDSR Dental College and Hospital, Latur, Maharashtra 413512, India.
MNR Dental College and Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the cell viability, differentiation potential and anti-inflammatory potential of propolis and Biodentine™ on stem cells isolated from human exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHED). Materials and methods: SHED were segregated and cultured from the dental pulp of children after therapeutic extraction. Microculture Tetrazolium Assay (MTT) assay was carried out for assessing cell proliferation potential of propolis and Biodentine at different concentrations. As per the results from cell proliferation assay, cell differentiation potential of SHED was evaluated at concentration of 12.5 μg/ml using Alizarin Red staining. The anti-inflammatory potential of test materials was evaluated using gelatin zymography by detecting MMP-2 and MMP-9. Results: The maximum cell proliferation percentage of SHED treated with propolis and Biodentine was observed at a concentration of 12.5 μg/ml, on day 7, 14 and 21 with Biodentine having maximum cell proliferation potential followed by propolis. SHED treated with Biodentine showed maximum cell differentiation on day 7 (107.16), 14 (106.29) and 21 (107.72). However, anti-inflammatory activity against MMP-2 was 95 % with propolis and 85 % with Biodentine and whereas, against MMP-9 it was 65 % for propolis and 47 % for Biodentine. Conclusion: Propolis shows comparable cell viability, cell proliferation and differentiation potential on SHED when compared to Biodentine. It also exhibits better invitro anti-inflammatory activity on SHED compared to Biodentine. Further studies are warranted to validate the application of propolis as an effective and economical alternative biocompatible agent to Biodentine for vital pulp therapies.

Indexed as

BiodentineGelatin ZymographyImmunofluorescence AssayMTT AssayPropolisStem-cells

Identifiers

PMID36267530
PMCPMC9577971
OpenAlexW4293382489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.