ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2026
Evaluation of the Remineralisation and Antibacterial Properties of Propolis, Chitosan, and Theobromine.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated the remineralisation potential of the natural compounds propolis, chitosan, and theobromine on artificial initial carious lesions and investigated their antibacterial and anti-biofilm activities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Artificial lesions were induced on buccal and lingual enamel surfaces of 14 extracted molars through a 72-h demineralisation process. Specimens were randomly assigned to seven groups (n = 4): propolis (100, 200 μg/mL), chitosan (1.25, 2.5 mg/ml), theobromine (100, 200 mg/L), and artificial saliva (control). Mineral density was assessed using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) at baseline, after demineralisation, and after pH cycling. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined by broth microdilution, and antibiofilm effects were evaluated using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM).
resultsMicro-CT showed that both propolis groups exhibited mineral gain and % remineralisation values similar to the negative control, whereas chitosan and theobromine groups had significantly higher values (P 0.05). MIC values were 100 μg/ml for propolis and 0.15 mg/ml for chitosan, while theobromine showed no effect. Quantitative CLSM analysis revealed that only the propolis 200 µg/ml group had a significantly lower total biomass compared to the negative control (P 0.05). Additionally, both propolis groups demonstrated a significantly higher dead/live cell ratio than the negative control groups (P 0.05). However, no significant differences in dead/live cell ratios were observed among the chitosan, theobromine, and negative control groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionChitosan and theobromine exhibited favourable outcomes in terms of remineralisation; however, their antimicrobial efficacy remained limited. In contrast, propolis exhibited promising antibacterial activity but lacked significant remineralisation capability.
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.