Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(01): 130-136
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731888
Original Article

Effect of Yellow Propolis on Biocompatibility of Cements: Morphological and Immunohistochemistry Analysis

Izaura Helena Chaves de Meneses
1   Department of Dentistry, Dental School, Uniesp Centro Universitario, Cabedelo, Paraíba, Brazil
,
Gêisa Aiane de Morais Sampaio
2   Department of Dentistry, Dental School, University of Pernambuco, Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil
,
Rayssa Amaral Vieira
3   Graduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
,
Márcio José da Silva Campos
3   Graduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
,
Polliana Muniz Alves
4   Department of Pathology, Dental School, State University of Paraíba, Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil
,
Matheus Melo Pithon
5   Department of Orthodontics, State University of the Southwest of Bahia, Jéquie, Bahia, Brazil
,
Rogério Lacerda-Santos 
6   Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was financed in part by the CAPES—Finance Code 001.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The focus of this study was to evaluate the biocompatibility of ionomer cements modified with ethanolic extracts of propolis (EEP) in different concentrations and time intervals.

Materials and Methods In total, one hundred and thirty-five male Wistar rats were randomized into nine groups: Control, Groups Meron, and Groups Ketac (conventional, and added with 10, 25, 50% EEP, respectively). Histological analyses of inflammatory infiltrate and collagen fibers, and immunohistochemistry of CD68+ for macrophages (MOs) and multinucleated giant cells (MGCs) were performed.

Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using the Kruskal—Wallis and Dunn (p < 0.05) tests.

Results Intense inflammatory infiltrate was demonstrated in the cements with 10% EEP at 7 days and 15 days (p < 0.05), only Group Ketac 10% EEP (p = 0.01) at 30 days. A smaller quantity of collagen fibers was observed in the cements with 10% EEP (p = 0.01) at 7 days, and Group Meron 10% EEP (p = 0.04) at 15 days. MOs and MGCs showed significant difference for the cements with 10% EEP (p = 0.01) at 7 and 15 days. At 30 days, MOs persisted in the Groups with 10% EEP.

Conclusions The concentration of 10% EEP had the greatest influence on the inflammatory and tissue repair processes. The concentrations of 25 and 50% EEP demonstrated biocompatibility similar to that of cements that did not receive EEP.

Keywords

microscope - propolis - biocompatibility - histological - glass ionomer cements


Publication History

Article published online:
24 August 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hatunoğlu E, Oztürk F, Bilenler T, Aksakallı S, Simşek N. Antibacterial and mechanical properties of propolis added to glass ionomer cement. Angle Orthod 2014; 84 (02) 368-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Meneses IHC, Sampaio GAM, Carvalho FG. et al. In vivo biocompatibility, mechanical, and antibacterial properties of cements modified with propolis in different concentrations. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (01) 77-84
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Topcuoglu N, Ozan F, Ozyurt M, Kulekci G. In vitro antibacterial effects of glass-ionomer cement containing ethanolic extract of propolis on Streptococcus mutans. Eur J Dent 2012; 6 (04) 428-433
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Farret MM, de Lima EM, Mota EG, Oshima HM, Barth V, de Oliveira SD. Can we add chlorhexidine into glass ionomer cements for band cementation?. Angle Orthod 2011; 81 (03) 496-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Prabhakar AR, Balehosur DV, Basappa N. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength and fluoride release of conventional glass ionomer with 1% ethanolic extract of propolis incorporated glass ionomer cement—in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016; 10 (05) ZC88-ZC91
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Moheet IA, Luddin N, Rahman IA. Kannan TP, Nik Abd Ghani NR, Masudi SM. Modifications of glass ionomer cement powder by addition of recently fabricated nano-fillers and their effect on the properties: a review. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (03) 470-477
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Araújo JLDS, Alvim MMA, Campos MJDS, Apolônio ACM, Carvalho FG, Lacerda-Santos R. Analysis of chlorhexidinemodified cement in orthodontic patients: a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Eur J Dent 2021; 15 (04) 639-646
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Elgamily H, Ghallab O, El-Sayed H, Nasr M. Antibacterial potency and fluoride release of a glass ionomer restorative material containing different concentrations of natural and chemical products: an in vitro comparative study. J Clin Exp Dent 2018; 10 (04) e312-e320
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hafshejani TM, Zamanian A, Venugopal JR. et al. Antibacterial glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a critical review on the current status of extended release formulations. J Control Release 2017; 262 (04) 317-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sampaio GAM, Lacerda-Santos R, Cavalcanti YW, Vieira GHA, Nonaka CFW, Alves PM. Biocompatibility of ionomeric cements modified by red propolis: a morphological and immunohistochemical analysis. J Adhes Dent 2020; 22 (05) 515-522
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Grenho L, Barros J, Ferreira C. et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity and biocompatibility of propolis containing nanohydroxyapatite. Biomed Mater 2015; 10 (02) 025004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jafarzadeh Kashi TS, Kasra Kermanshahi R, Erfan M, Vahid Dastjerdi E, Rezaei Y, Tabatabaei FS. Evaluating the in vitro antibacterial effect of Iranian propolis on oral microorganisms. Iran J Pharm Res 2011; 10 (02) 363-368
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Silici S, Koç NA, Ayangil D, Cankaya S. Antifungal activities of propolis collected by different races of honeybees against yeasts isolated from patients with superficial mycoses. J Pharmacol Sci 2005; 99 (01) 39-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Schnitzler P, Neuner A, Nolkemper S. et al. Antiviral activity and mode of action of propolis extracts and selected compounds. Phytother Res 2010; 24 (Suppl. 01) S20-S28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Esmeraldo MR, Carvalho MG, Carvalho RA, Lima RdeF, Costa EM. Inflammatory effect of green propolis on dental pulp in rats. Braz Oral Res 2013; 27 (05) 417-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ferreira FB, Torres SA, Rosa OP. et al. Antimicrobial effect of propolis and other substances against selected endodontic pathogens. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 104 (05) 709-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Amanzada A, Malik IA, Blaschke M. et al. Identification of CD68(+) neutrophil granulocytes in in vitro model of acute inflammation and inflammatory bowel disease. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2013; 6 (04) 561-570
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Almeida Mesquita J, Lacerda-Santos R, Pina Godoy G, Franscisco Weege Nonaka C, Muniz Alves P. Morphological and immunohistochemical analysis of the biocompatibility of resin-modified cements. Microsc Res Tech 2017; 80 (05) 504-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Seidenari S, Giusti F, Pepe P, Mantovani L. Contact sensitization in 1094 children undergoing patch testing over a 7-year period. Pediatr Dermatol 2005; 22 (01) 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lacerda-Santos R, De Farias MI, De Carvalho FG. et al. In vivo biocompatibility versus degree of conversion of resin-reinforced cements in different time periods. Microsc Res Tech 2014; 77 (05) 335-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Penha ESD, Lacerda-Santos R, Carvalho MGF, Oliveira PT. Effect of Chenopodium ambrosioides on the healing process of the in vivo bone tissue. Microsc Res Tech 2017; 80 (11) 1167-1173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lacerda-Santos R, de IH Meneses, Sampaio GA, Pithon MM, Alves PM. Effect of degree of conversion on in vivo biocompatibility of flowable resin used for bioprotection of mini-implants. Angle Orthod 2016; 86 (01) 157-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lacerda-Santos R, Lima ABL, Penha ESD. et al. In vivo biocompatibility of silicon dioxide nanofilm used as antimicrobial agent on acrylic surface. An Acad Bras Cienc 2020; 92 (01) e20181120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Penha ESD, Lacerda-Santos R, de Medeiros LADM. et al. Effect of chitosan and Dysphania ambrosioides on the bone regeneration process: a randomized controlled trial in an animal model. Microsc Res Tech 2020; 83 (10) 1208-1216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lacerda-Santos R, Roberto BMS, de Siqueira Nunes B, Carvalho FG, Dos Santos A, Dantas AFM. Histological analysis of biocompatibility of different surgical adhesives in subcutaneous tissue. Microsc Res Tech 2019; 82 (07) 1184-1190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lacerda-Santos R, Sampaio GA, Moura MdeF. et al. Effect of different concentrations of chlorhexidine in glass-ionomer cements on in vivo biocompatibility. J Adhes Dent 2016; 18 (04) 325-330
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Shanbhag VKL. Propolis in dentistry and oral cancer management. N Am J Med Sci 2014; 6 (06) 250-259
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Akao Y, Maruyama H, Matsumoto K. et al. Cell growth inhibitory effect of cinnamic acid derivatives from propolis on human tumor cell lines. Biol Pharm Bull 2003; 26 (07) 1057-1059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tipoe GL, Leung TM, Hung MW, Fung ML. Green tea polyphenols as an anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory agent for cardiovascular protection. Cardiovasc Hematol Disord Drug Targets 2007; 7 (02) 135-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lo CY, Hsiao WT, Chen XY. Efficiency of trapping methylglyoxal by phenols and phenolic acids. J Food Sci 2011; 76 (03) H90-H96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hu J, Du X, Huang C, Fu D, Ouyang X, Wang Y. Antibacterial and physical properties of EGCG-containing glass ionomer cements. J Dent 2013; 41 (10) 927-934
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mesquita JA, Lacerda-Santos R, Sampaio GAM, Godoy GP, Nonaka CFW, Alves PM. Evaluation in vivo of biocompatibility of different resin-modified cements for bonding orthodontic bands. An Acad Bras Cienc 2017; 89 (Suppl. 03) 2433-2443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Troca VB, Fernandes KB, Terrile AE, Marcucci MC, Andrade FB, Wang L. Effect of green propolis addition to physical mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2011; 19 (02) 100-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Martin MP, Pileggi R. A quantitative analysis of propolis: a promising new storage media following avulsion. Dent Traumatol 2004; 20 (02) 85-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Meto A, Meto A, Bimbari B, Shytaj K, Özcan M. Anti-inflammatory and regenerative effects of albanian propolis in experimental vital amputations. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2016; 24 (03) 145-151
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Sabir A, Sumidarti A. Interleukin-6 expression on inflamed rat dental pulp tissue after capped with Trigona sp. propolis from south Sulawesi, Indonesia. Saudi J Biol Sci 2017; 24 (05) 1034-1037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Razak FA, Rahim ZH. The anti-adherence effect of Piper betle and Psidium guajava extracts on the adhesion of early settlers in dental plaque to saliva-coated glass surfaces. J Oral Sci 2003; 45 (04) 201-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Al-Shaher A, Wallace J, Agarwal S, Bretz W, Baugh D. Effect of propolis on human fibroblasts from the pulp and periodontal ligament. J Endod 2004; 30 (05) 359-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Zare M Jahromi, Ranjbarian P, Shiravi S. Cytotoxicity evaluation of Iranian propolis and calcium hydroxide on dental pulp fibroblasts. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2014; 8 (03) 130-133
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Sampaio GM, de Meneses IH, de Carvalho FG. et al. Antimicrobial, mechanical and biocompatibility analysis of chlorhexidine digluconate-modified cements. J Clin Exp Dent 2020; 12 (02) e178-e186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Manolea H, Mogoantă L, Mărgăritescu C, Deva V, Surlin P, Caraivan O. Immunohistochemical aspects of the evaluation of the inflammatory answer of the dental pulp. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2009; 50 (02) 207-212
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Ibraguimov A, Owens L, Su J, Tang L. Stability analysis of a model for foreign body fibrotic reactions. Comput Math Methods Med 2012; 2012: 809864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Vosoughhosseini S, Lotfi M, Moradzadeh M. et al. Comparison of two histopathologic methods for evaluating subcutaneous reaction to mineral trioxide aggregate. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012; 17 (01) e41-e44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 dos Santos RL, de Sampaio GA, de Carvalho FG, Pithon MM, Guênes GM, Alves PM. Influence of degree of conversion on the biocompatibility of different composites in vivo. J Adhes Dent 2014; 16 (01) 15-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Cunha SA, Rached Jr FJ, Alfredo E, León JE, Perez DE. Biocompatibility of sealers used in apical surgery: a histological study in rat subcutaneous tissue. Braz Dent J 2011; 22 (04) 299-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lacerda-Santos R, Batista RG, Neves SS. et al. Effectiveness of secondary alveolar bone graft on canine eruption: systematic review. Eur J Dent 2021; Doi: DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1723070.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Lacerda-Santos R, Canutto RF, Araújo JLDS. et al. Effect of orthodontic treatment on tooth autotransplantation: systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (03) 467-482
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar