Propolis Mouthwash Research Articles

Effect of propolis mouthwash on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care unit patients: a comparative randomized triple-blind clinical trial

ObjectivesVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) increases the length of hospitalization and mortality rate. This study aimed to determine the effect of propolis mouthwash on the incidence of VAP in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.Materials and methodsTriple-blind, comparative randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted over one year, with 110 ICU patients at Imam-Hossein and Bahar hospitals (Shahroud) and Kowsar Hospital (Semnan) in Iran. The intervention group used 15 cc of 0.06% propolis mouthwash solution twice daily at 8 AM and 4 PM for seven days. The control group used 15 cc of 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash at the same times and duration. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire, APACHE II, Beck Oral Assessment Scale, and Modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (MCPIS).ResultsThere was no significant difference in demographic information, disease severity, and oral health between the two groups before and after intervention (P > 0.05). The incidence of VAP in the intervention group compared to the control group was 10.9% vs. 30.9% on the third day (P = 0.0166, 95% CI: 0.53–0.83 and RR = 0.35), 23.6% vs. 43.6% on the fifth day (P = 0.0325 and 95% CI: 0.31–0.95 and RR = 0.54), and 25.5% vs. 47.3% on the seventh day (P = 0.0224, 95% CI: 0.32–0.92, and RR = 0.54). The Mann–Whitney indicated the incidence of VAP was significantly lower in the intervention group on the third, fifth, and seventh days.ConclusionPropolis mouthwash can be considered as an alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwash for ICU patients.Clinical relevancePropolis mouthwash serves as a simple, economical intervention to potentially reduce incidence of VAP.Trial registration(IRCT20110427006318N12, date 02.04.2019).

Evaluation of pH and Acidity in Xylitol Lollipops, Propolis Mouthwash, and Probiotic Lozenges: An in Vitro Study

Evaluation of pH and Acidity in Xylitol Lollipops, Propolis Mouthwash, and Probiotic Lozenges: An in Vitro Study

Comparative effectiveness of Propolis with chlorhexidine mouthwash on gingivitis – a randomized controlled clinical study

BackgroundTo assess and compare the effectiveness of propolis mouthwash with chlorhexidine mouthwash in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis.MethodsA single centre, latin-square cross-over, double masked, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 45 chronic generalized gingivitis subjects who were chosen from the dental clinic of MAHSA University, Malaysia. A total of 45 subjects were randomly assigned into one of the three different groups (n = 15 each) using a computer-generated random allocation sequence: Group A Propolis mouthwash; Group B Chlorhexidine mouthwash; and Group C Placebo mouthwash. Supragingival plaque and gingival inflammation were assessed by full mouth Plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) at baseline and after 21 days. The study was divided into three phases, each phase lasted for 21 days separated by a washout period of 15 days in between them. Groups A, B and C were treated with 0.2% Propolis, Chlorhexidine, and Placebo mouthwash, respectively, in phase I. The study subjects were instructed to use the assigned mouthwash twice daily for 1 min for 21 days. On day 22nd, the subjects were recalled for measurement of PI and GI. After phase I, mouthwash was crossed over as dictated by the Latin square design in phase II and III.ResultsAt baseline, intergroup comparison revealed no statistically significant difference between Groups A, B and C (p > 0.05). On day 21, one-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant difference between the three groups for PI (p < 0.001) and GI (p < 0.001). Bonferroni post-hoc test showed statistically significant difference between Propolis and Chlorhexidine mouthwash (P < 0.001), with higher reduction in the mean plaque and gingival scores in propolis group compared to chlorhexidine and placebo groups.ConclusionsPropolis mouthwash demonstrated significant improvement in gingival health and plaque reduction. Thus, it could be used as an effective herbal mouthwash alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwash.Trial registrationThe trial was retrospectively registered on 25/07/2019 at clinicaltrials.gov and its identifier is NCT04032548.

Comparative evaluation of propolis mouthwash with 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash as an adjunct to mechanical therapy in improving the periodontitis among perimenopausal women: a randomized controlled trial

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of Propolis mouthwash compared to chlorhexidine mouthwash as an adjunct to mechanical therapy in improving clinical parameters in perimenopausal women with chronic periodontitis.MethodologyA double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted by recruiting 144 subjects with mild to moderate chronic periodontitis. After scaling and root planning, subjects were allocated to two treatment groups: 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash and 20% propolis mouthwash twice daily for six weeks. Clinical parameters such as pocket probing depth (PPD), clinical attachment loss (CAL) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were analysed at baseline, six weeks, and 12 weeks.ResultThe mean value of PPD in the propolis group was 4.67 at baseline, reduced to 4.01 at six weeks and 3.59 at 12 weeks. While in the chlorhexidine group, the baseline value of 4.65 reduced to 4.44 and 4.25 at six weeks and 12 weeks, respectively. The baseline value of the mean CAL in the propolis group was 4.45. This value was reduced to 4.15 at six weeks and 3.77 at 12 weeks. For the chlorhexidine group, the baseline value of CAL was 4.80, which was reduced to 4.50 and 4.19 at six weeks and 12 weeks. The mean value of bleeding on probing in the propolis group was 77.20, which decreased to 46.30 at six weeks and 14.60 at the final visit. In the chlorhexidine group, the mean value of 77.30 was reduced to 49.60 and 22.80 at subsequent visits.ConclusionThis study concludes that both propolis and chlorhexidine mouthwash positively improve clinical parameters; however, propolis is significantly more effective in improving BOP.Trial registrationID: NCT05870059, Date of Registration: 02/02/2022. (https://beta.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05870059).

Efficacy of Propolis in the Prevention of Oral Mucositis in Patients Undergoing High-Dose Chemotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Oral mucositis is one of the most common symptoms in adults with a hematological cancer who are receiving high-dose chemotherapy. Propolis is a complementary and alternative method used to prevent oral mucositis in these patients. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of propolis in the prevention of oral mucositis in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and/or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. A total of 64 patients, 32 in the propolis group and 32 in the control group, were enrolled in this prospective randomized controlled experimental study. Whereas the standard oral care treatment protocol was administered to the control group, aqueous propolis extract was applied to the propolis intervention group in addition to the standard oral care treatment protocol. Data collection forms included a Descriptive Information Form, the Karnofsky Performance Scale, the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric, Patient Follow-up Form, the World Health Organization Oral Toxicity Scale, and the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. The incidence and duration of oral mucositis were statistically significantly lower in the propolis intervention group than the control group, and the onset of oral mucositis and grade 2 to 3 oral mucositis occurred later ( P < .05). Propolis mouthwash combined with standard oral care treatment delayed the onset of oral mucositis and decreased its incidence and the number of days it lasted. Mouthwash with propolis can be used as a nursing intervention to decrease oral mucositis and its symptoms in hematological cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy.

Can propolis mouthwash inhibit the growth of Streptococcus mutans in a biofilm?

Can propolis mouthwash inhibit the growth of Streptococcus mutans in a biofilm?

PENGARUH OBAT KUMUR TERHADAP KONDISI MUKOSITIS PASIEN KANKER RONGGA MULUT YANG MENERIMA KEMOTERAPI DAN RADIOTERAPI

Introduction : Oral cancer, also known as mouth cancer, is a malignancy that develops in any part of the oral cavity. Oral cancer can occur on the lips, tongue, gums, cheek, and mucosa of the palate. Oral cancer therapy includes chemotherapy and radiotherapy which can cause side effects, one of them is oral mucositis. Oral mucositis is one of the most common complications of cancer therapy. The main complaint of patients with mucositis is pain which is characterized by clinical features in the form of an erythema, bleeding, and ulceration. Mouthwash has been widely used as an antimicrobial compound and topical prophylactic agent against oral mucositis. The purpose of this literature is to explain the differences between mouthwashes used and the one that produce a better therapeutic effect. Review : Mouthwash used to treat mucositis in several studies in the literature is saline, 0.12% chlorhexidine and 5% bicarbonate, and propolis. The results showed that the use of saline only provided moisture to the ulcerative area but did not suppress any pain. While the combination of 0.12% chlorhexidine and 5% bicarbonate has a healing effect for five to seven days. The propolis mouthwash has a healing effect for 14 days but only for adult patients. Conclusion : The study of mouthwash had many advantages and disadvantages against oral mucositis, but the mouthwash with a combination of 0.12% chlorhexidine and 5% bicarbonate had a good analgesic effect for patient with oral cancer.

Prophetic Medicine for Treatment of Radiotherapy-Induced Mucositis

Objective: Mucositis is a debilitating complication of radiotherapy treatment in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Mucositis can lead to malnutrition due to poor oral intake, and the cancer treatment protocol might be postponed due to this condition. Until now, there is no specific treatment to prevent radiotherapy-induced mucositis in NPC patients. The usage of propolis mouthwash is believed to be one of the important remedies to reduce the severity of mucositis in the future. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of propolis mouthwash in preventing radiotherapy-induced mucositis in NPC patients.Methods: This is a double arm, prospective, randomized control trial (RCT) with intervention involving 17 patients diagnosed with NPC attending ORL-HNS clinic in Institut Perubatan &amp; Pergigian Termaju (IPPT) Bertam. 10 patients were given propolis mouthwash and another 7 patients were given normal saline mouthwash as a placebo. The effectiveness of propolis mouthwash was assessed by repeated measures ANOVA.Result: All 17 NPC patients were randomly divided into propolis group (intervention) and normal saline group (placebo). 10 patients were given propolis mouthwash and another 7 patients were given normal saline mouthwash. Comparison of adjusted mean and 95% confidence interval of mucositis grading score between propolis mouthwash and normal saline showed at the second week was 0.10(- 0.13, 0.33) vs 1.14(0.31, 1.98), fourth week: 0.50(0.12, 0.88) vs 2.00(1.47, 2.53), and sixth week: 1.20(0.90, 1.50) vs 2.86(2.51, 3.21), respectively. Repeated measures ANOVA showed P&lt;0.001, indicating a significant improvement of mucositis grading between propolis and normal saline group.Conclusion: Propolis mouthwash is proved to be effective in reducing the severity of radiotherapyinduced mucositis in NPC patients and it is safe to be used. Therefore, its use is recommended as an adjunct treatment during the treatment protocol of NPC.International Journal of Human and Health Sciences Supplementary Issue: 2022 Page: S41

In Vitro Effects of Propolis Mouthwash and Nystatin on Candida Albicans: A Comparative Study

Background &amp; Objective: Oral candidiasis is the most common fungal infection of the oral cavity, mainly caused by the overgrowth of Candida albicans. One of the topical medications for candidiasis is nystatin, a polyene antifungal agent. Nevertheless, increased resistance to this drug because of overprescription has caused recurrent oral candidiasis. There is a lot of interest today in the use of natural products and compounds due to the side effects of synthetic products. Propolis is a natural resin substance produced by bees through the combination of wax and saliva with resins collected from plants, which has reportedly antibacterial, antifungal and antitumor properties. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of propolis mouthwash and nystatin on C. albicans. Materials &amp; Methods: The present in vitro study, in which the effects of antifungal agents were investigated on the standard strain of C. albicans, was conducted within two groups of 15, nystatin and propolis, using the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion susceptibility test after preparation and sterilization. The diameter of the zone of inhibition (ZOI) was measured in this assay using the disc diffusion method onto Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA) medium. Results: Statistical analysis of data by SPSS software using t-test statistics to evaluate the antifungal effect of the interventions showed a better antifungal effect of nystatin compared to propolis mouthwash against C. albicans (P&lt;0.001). Conclusion: The findings of this study demonstrated that the local propolis mouthwash was less potent than nystatin in inhibiting the growth of C. albicans, probably due to differences in the concentration and geographical region of collected propolis. Further research on species isolated from oral biofilm is needed to achieve complementary outcomes.

Effect of Propolis mouthwash on clinical periodontal parameters in patients with gingivitis: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial.

Periodontal diseases have multifactorial aetiology and are primarily caused by pathogenic bacteria. Using antibacterial mouthwashes as an adjunct to mechanical plaque control can effectively improve the quality of oral hygiene maintenance at home. This study aimed to assess the clinical efficacy of a propolis-containing mouthwash in gingivitis treatment. This clinical trial evaluated 32 patients with gingivitis in two groups (n=16). The intervention group received a mouthwash containing propolis extract while the control group received the same mouthwash without the propolis extract. The papillary bleeding index (PBI), plaque index (PI) and tooth discoloration were evaluated in each patient at baseline (before the intervention) and at 15 and 30days, after treatment. To facilitate the follow-up evaluations, the measurements were recorded for the tooth with the most inflamed gingiva in each quadrant (n=128). The two groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. The change in PI was 85.19±51.6% in the propolis and 83.93±36.1% in the placebo group with no significant difference between them (p=0.91). The reduction in papillary bleeding index was significantly greater in the propolis group compared with the placebo group (p<0.001). The change in tooth colour over time was significant in the placebo and insignificant in the propolis group (p=0.14). Considering the current findings, it seems that propolis mouthwash can effectively decrease gingival inflammation and bleeding, without causing tooth discoloration or staining. Considering the limitations of this study such as small sample size (based on participants and also number of teeth included in the study), future studies are warranted on this topic.

Plaque Removal Efficacy of Three Cleaning Methods for Removable Orthodontic Appliances: A Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial.

The mechanical plaque removal methods of removable orthodontic appliances (ROAs) may damage the appliance surface and may not effectively eliminate the entire microbial plaque. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of brushing + denture cleanser tablets, brushing + propolis mouthwash and brushing only for plaque removal from each orthodontic appliance surface. This crossover randomized clinical trial evaluated 32 patients between 7-15 years with ROAs. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups of brushing (control), brushing + denture cleanser tablets (intervention group 1), and brushing + propolis mouthwash (intervention group 2). The plaque removal methods were switched among the groups during three 1-month periods. One month after practicing a certain protocol, the plaque disclosing agent was applied on the surface of the appliance. The photographs of appliances were analyzed by Image J software to calculate the surface area occupied by the residual microbial plaque. The ratio difference of residual plaque surface area to the surface area of the entire appliance was significant between the intervention group1 and control group (p<0.001), while it was not significant in intervention group 2 and control group (p=0.105). Also, this difference between the intervention group1 and 2 was statistically significant (p<0.001). Simultaneous use of toothbrush with denture cleanser tablets decreased the microbial biofilm on the surface of ROAs, compared with brushing alone. Thus, it seems that the use of denture cleaning tablets may be suitable for effective cleaning of ROAs.

Effect of Propolis Paste and Mouthwash Formulation on Healing after Teeth Extraction in Periodontal Disease.

This study investigated the antimicrobial effects of a mouthwash containing propolis and the effect of a propolis paste formulation on dental healing after teeth extraction in patients with periodontal disease. In the mouthwash experience, the population comprised 40 patients, which were divided as follows: the control mouthwash, 0.2% chlorhexidine (v/v) mouthwash, 2% (w/v) propolis mouthwash, and propolis + chlorhexidine mouthwash. The study of the propolis paste comprised a population of 60 patients with periodontal disease, and a total of 120 symmetric tooth extractions were performed. Propolis showed antimicrobial activity by itself, and especially with the chlorhexidine association. Three days after surgery in the teeth treated with control paste, only 13.4% had completely healed; however, with propolis paste, in 90% of the periodontal sockets, healing was complete. In addition, a reduction in Streptococci mutans and Lactobacilli cfu was observed with propolis, and especially with the association of chlorhexidine + propolis. Propolis mouthwash reduced bacterial proliferation, especially in association with chlorhexidine. Propolis paste is a viable alternative for socket healing after dental extraction. The knowledge gained from these findings will provide a foundation for similar propolis therapies in order to improve the healing process after dental surgery.

Effect of Propolis and Pomegranate Extract Mouthwashes on Taste Alteration, Salivary pH and Antibacterial Activity in High Caries Risk Patients: A Randomized Control Trial

Dental caries prevention is the key to control dental caries worldwide problem nowadays. Chlorhexidine is the gold standard antibacterial agent but it has many side effects so natural products have been proposed as a safer alternative; Propolis and pomegranate are known with their great antibacterial properties.Aim: This study assessed taste alteration, salivary pH and antibacterial activity of propolis and pomegranate mouthwashes compared to chlorhexidine mouthwash in high caries risk patients.Materials and Methods: A total of 80 participantswere divided randomly into four groups, in a parallel group design. Group 1:propolis mouthwash, group 2: pomegranate mouthwash, group 3: chlorhexidine mouthwash and group 4: saline. Salivary sample was collected at baseline, immediately after mouthwash usage and after seven days. The pH of the collected saliva and streptococcus mutans bacterial count were assessed. Participants received a questionnaire to assess taste alteration on the seventh day. Statistical analysis took placeusing ANOVA/ Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests.Results: Chlorhexidine has a significantly higher incidence of taste alteration compared to the other mouthwashes which showed statistically similar incidence. The highest salivary pH value was recorded after immediate usage of mouthwashes in all groups, after seven days there was no significant change in chlorhexidine and saline groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the total percentage reduction of bacterial count in all groups but with highest percentage of reduction after immediate usage.Conclusion: Propolis and pomegranate mouthwashes could be considered as an alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwash

Efficacy and safety of propolis mouthwash in management of radiotherapy induced oral mucositis; A randomized, double blind clinical trial.

Propolis has been used for the management of oral mucositis in a number of studies. Due to lack of sufficient evidence especially in radiotherapy induced oral mucositis, the present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of propolis mouthwash in oral mucositis and dysphagia in patients undergoing head and neck radiotherapy. This study was a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The patients randomly divided into two groups receiving either the propolis or the placebo mouthwash. Patients were advised to rinse their mouth with 15 mL three times daily for four weeks. Severity of mucositis and dysphagia were evaluated by the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), respectively. Thirty patients completed the study. Each group consisted of 15 patients. Although, there is not any significant difference between two groups in the first week of radiotherapy, a significant difference was seen in the second, the third and the fourth week (p = 0.03, 0.02, 0.02, respectively). Dysphagia reported as a mild score in the propolis group only in the fourth week which is significant compared with the placebo group (p = 0.01). There is not any serious adverse effect related to propolis or placebo during the study. It seems that propolis mouthwash is an effective and safe medication for alleviation of oral mucositis and dysphagia in patients under head and neck radiotherapy.

Antimicrobial Effect of Propolis Administered through Two Different Vehicles in High Caries Risk Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

To investigate the effect of two methods of propolis administration on plaque accumulation and microbial count as well as patient acceptance of each vehicle. A randomized clinical trial with two parallel arms was used with a sample of 60 high caries risk children 6-8 years old. Children were divided randomly into two groups. Group I: Children who received propolis chewing gum and instructed to chew it twice daily for at least twenty minutes, for two weeks. Group II: children who received propolis mouthwash and instructed to rinse twice daily for one minute. A plaque index was recorded and a plaque sample was collected from all participants at base line and after two weeks of treatment. All participants were asked to rate the preparation they received during treatment period on a Visual Analogue Scale chart. Data showed that propolis had a significant effect on reducing plaque scores and colony counts in both vehicles. There was no significant difference between both vehicles neither on plaque reduction nor on microbial count. However children preferred the gum formula. Propolis in both vehicles reduced plaque accumulation and microbial count which recommends its use as an antimicrobial agent in different vehicles.

Efficacy of propolis-based mouthwashes on dental plaque and gingival inflammation: a systematic review

BackgroundThis systematic review of randomized clinical trials aimed to evaluate the available evidence regarding the efficacy of propolis-based mouthwash on dental plaque and gingival inflammation.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to November 2019. Clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of propolis mouthwashes compared with chlorhexidine (CHX) were included. The primary outcomes comprised dental plaque and/or gingival inflammation. Two authors assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. Due to marked heterogeneity of the available data, studies were assessed qualitatively, and no metaanalysis was performed.ResultsNine clinical trials, comprising 333 subjects, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Most of the included studies showed high risk of bias. Overall, propolis mouthwashes showed good efficacy on plaque and gingivitis in all of the included studies. Out of the eight studies that reported on plaque index, 5 studies found equal efficacy of propolis and CHX in reducing plaque, two studies found superior efficacy in favor of CHX, while one study found superior efficacy in favor of propolis. Six studies assessed gingival inflammation outcome, four of which reported better results with propolis, while two studies reported comparable results.ConclusionsThe results suggest that propolis-based mouthwashes have potential benefits in reducing plaque and gingival inflammation. However, methodological limitations along with small sample sizes in some of the included studies weaken the strength of the evidence. Therefore, further well-designed clinical trials with large sample sizes and adequate follow-up period are recommended to discern the efficacy of propolis mouthwash on plaque and gingivitis.

EVALUATION OF ANTIMICROBIAL EFFECT OF TWO PROPOLIS FORMULAE ON STREPTOCOCCUS MUTANS AND CANDIDA ALBICANS: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

INTRODUCTION: Streptococcus mutans is considered to be the most cariogenic microorganism. However, candida albicans has also been isolated from dental plaque of high caries risk children. Therefore, uses of natural antimicrobial agents such as propolis have been established as an adjunctive approach for oral health care. OBJECTIVES: the aim of this study was to evaluate the antibacterial and antifungal effects of propolis chewing gum compared to propolis mouthwash. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty high caries risk children aged 6 to 8 were randomly assigned into two groups. Group I received propolis chewing gum and Group II received propolis mouthwash. A baseline and final plaque samples were obtained from each participant before and after intervention respectively within 14 days interval. All participants were asked to refrain from eating or brushing on the sampling days. Samples were sent immediately to the laboratory for microbial assessment. RESULTS: data revealed that both study groups showed significant differences (P≤0.001) in streptococcus mutans and candida albicans counts before and after intervention. But there was no significant difference among the comparative groups. CONCLUSION: It was demonstrated that propolis chewing gum and propolis mouthwash can be used as antimicrobial agents.

The Effect of Propolis Mouthwash Compared to Chlorhexidine Mouthwash on Oral and Cardiovascular Health

The Effect of Propolis Mouthwash Compared to Chlorhexidine Mouthwash on Oral and Cardiovascular Health

Cytotoxic and antibacterial effect of a red propolis mouthwash, with or without fluoride, on the growth of a cariogenic biofilm

ObjectiveTo evaluatein vitro the antibacterial activity, the antibiofilm effect and the cytotoxic potential of mouthwashes containing Brazilian red propolis with or without fluoride. MethodsThe minimum inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations (MIC and MBC) against S. mutans, S. sanguinis, S. salivarius and L. casei were determined for RPE mouthwashes. A cariogenic biofilm with the aforementioned bacteria was formed over cellulose membrane disks (N = 30, 13 mm), which were submitted for 1 min to the following mouthwashes: plain mouthwash base; 0.05% NaF; 0.8% RPE; 0.8% RPE + 0.05% NaF and 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX). The bacterial viability and the production of extracellular polysaccharide (EPS) were measured. Cytotoxic potential of the mouthwashes was also evaluated. For bacterial viability and EPS production, Mann-Withney and one-way ANOVA tests were performed followed by Tukey, with results considered significant when p ≤ 0.05. ResultsMIC and MBC values of RPE mouthwashes ranged from 7.44 to 29.76 mg/mL and from 7.44 to ≥59.52 mg/mL, respectively, presenting better action against S. salivarius. RPE mouthwashes showed 44% of viable cells after 1 min of contact with fibroblasts. RPE (7.74) had the greatest reduction of viable total microorganisms and did not differ from the RPE + NaF (7.95) (p = 0.292). CHX (7.54) was the most effective in reducing Streptococcus spp, but did not differ from RPE (p = 0.521) and RPE + NaF (p = 0.238). There was no difference between the treatments regarding EPS production. ConclusionRPE and RPE + NaF mouthwash showed similar antibacterial activity, toxicity level and antibiofilm effect compared to CHX.

Effectiveness of Propolis Mouthwash on Gingivitis

Effectiveness of Propolis Mouthwash on Gingivitis