ReviewChemistry & biodiversity2026
Topical Formulations Containing Mentha piperita for Wound Healing: A Scoping Review.
Review in Chemistry & biodiversity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Topical Formulations Containing Mentha piperita for Wound Healing: A Scoping Review.Chemistry & biodiversity · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Skin wound infections represent a major clinical challenge, exacerbated by biofilm formation and the increasing prevalence of bacterial resistance. Essential oils, particularly those of Mentha piperita, are well recognized for their antimicrobial and wound-healing properties. This scoping review mapped the available evidence on the use of topical formulations containing M. piperita-derived products for wound healing, with a focus on formulation vehicles, concentrations, experimental models, and efficacy parameters. Following JBI and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS (2010-2025). Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were preclinical, comprising in vitro (35%), in vivo (30%), and combined in vitro/in vivo (30%) models. Only one ex vivo study was identified, and no clinical trials were found. The formulations investigated ranged from creams and gels to nanoemulsions, lipid carriers, films, and nanofibers, with concentrations varying from 0.5% to 20%. Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequently tested strain and showed greater susceptibility to peppermint essential oil (PEO). Incorporation into nanostructured systems was associated with improved stability, enhanced skin permeation, and superior antimicrobial performance, particularly when combined with nanoparticles, metals, other bioactive compounds, or, in specific cases, clinical antibiotics such as levofloxacin. Across both infected wound models and noninfected wound-healing models, M. piperita-containing formulations were associated with favorable outcomes, although the underlying mechanisms differed depending on the presence or absence of microbial challenge. Despite these promising findings, significant gaps remain regarding ex vivo validation, safety assessment, and clinical translation. Overall, PEO demonstrates considerable potential as an antimicrobial and wound-healing agent; however, more standardized and clinically oriented studies are required.
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.