Efficacy and Safety of Propolis for Treating Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis (RAS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

The systematic review assessed the efficacy and safety of propolis for treating recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS). The review adopted the PICO framework to examine the effects of topical and systemic propolis on RAS while also comparing it to established treatments, placebos, or no treatment. The main focus was on the healing time, pain levels, adverse effects, the likelihood of ulcer recurrence, and accompanying symptoms such as redness. The team included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, excluding case reports and studies on oral ulcers other than RAS. In May 2022, the review team comprehensively searched nine databases and trial registries following the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database under the registration number CRD42022327123. Two review authors conducted a comprehensive and autonomous search for pertinent papers and extracted essential data. Where data permitted, the team utilised Review Manager 5 to conduct a random-effects meta-analysis, assessing the risk of bias and heterogeneity of the included studies. Where possible, the GRADE Pro programme was used to assess the certainty of the evidence for all the outcomes. This review included 10 RCTs, comprising 825 participants aged between 18 and 69 years. Seven studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of propolis when applied topically, all of which used different formulations, concentrations, and carriers. The remaining three studies assessed systemic administration in tablet form. The duration of investigations ranged from 5 days to 3 years. The review team classified two studies as having an overall 'high risk' of bias, while the remaining studies were categorised as having an overall 'uncertain risk'. The overall certainty of the evidence was 'very low'. The results indicate that topical and systemic propolis may decrease the duration of healing, alleviate pain, and reduce redness in patients with RAS compared to a placebo. However, the certainty of the evidence is very low. These may be due to the high risk of bias, substantial heterogeneity, and limited sample sizes in the included studies. For these reasons, the results of this review should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the limited number of adverse effects observed suggests that propolis may have a favourable safety profile when used for a short period in treating RAS.