Aldosari Amirah Y, Aljared Amira M, Alqurshy Hanin S, Alfarran Abdullah M, Alnahdi Mohanad G, Alharbi Sarah S, Alharbi Wed S, Alghamdi Faisal T
General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, SAU.
General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, SAU.
Cureus. 2025 Jan 14;17(1):e77430. doi: 10.7759/cureus.77430. eCollection 2025 Jan.
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.
在健康患者中,蜂胶对恒牙(未成熟和成熟)进行根管治疗的效果仍不确定,证据相互矛盾。因此,本系统评价旨在评估当前关于蜂胶在根管治疗程序中的安全性和有效性的文献。使用PubMed、Scopus、科学网和谷歌学术进行了广泛的文献检索。仅纳入探索蜂胶在牙髓病学中临床应用的人类随机临床试验(RCT)。进行了叙述性综合分析,并通过基于网络的Robvis应用程序使用Cochrane RoB-2对方法学质量评估的偏倚风险(RoB)进行了评估。选择了八项RCT,重点关注将蜂胶用于活髓直接盖髓以及用于根管消毒和充填材料的死髓。蜂胶显示出有前景的效果,包括控制炎症、促进组织愈合以及对根管系统进行消毒。然而,将蜂胶与用于盖髓或根管内药物的其他材料进行比较时,未观察到显著差异。RoB评估显示风险水平各不相同,两项研究显示高风险,三项风险不明确,三项显示低风险。观察到证据的确定性为中等。基于目前的证据,在恒牙活髓或死髓治疗中,没有足够的数据推荐使用蜂胶而非其他材料。由于证据有限且各研究的临床结果存在差异,不建议将蜂胶作为确定性治疗方法。然而,未来高质量的RCT对于得出更明确的结论至关重要。