ReviewCureus2025
The Clinical Effectiveness of Propolis on the Endodontic Treatment of Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials and Updates.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endodontic treatment of permanent teeth (immature and mature) with propolis in healthy patients remains uncertain, with conflicting evidence. Therefore, this systematic review aims to evaluate the current literature on the safety and efficacy of propolis in endodontic procedures. An extensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Google Scholar. Only human randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that explored the clinical applications of propolis in endodontics were considered. Narrative synthesis was performed, and the risk of bias (RoB) for methodological quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane RoB-2 via the Robvis web-based application. Eight RCTs were selected, focusing on using propolis in vital pulps for direct pulp capping and non-vital pulps for root canal disinfection and filling materials. Propolis demonstrated promising effects, including controlling inflammation, promoting tissue healing, and disinfecting the root canal system. However, no significant differences were observed when comparing propolis to other materials used in pulp capping or intracanal medicaments. The RoB assessment revealed varied levels of risk, with two studies exhibiting a high risk, three having unclear risks, and three showing low risk. Moderate certainty of evidence was observed. Based on the current evidence, there is insufficient data to recommend propolis over other materials in the treatment of vital or non-vital pulps in permanent teeth. Propolis was not recommended as a definitive treatment due to the limited evidence and variability in the clinical outcomes across studies. However, future high-quality RCTs are essential for more definitive conclusions.
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.