SynthesisClinical oral investigations2026
Propolis-containing formulations in caries prevention - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the clinical efficacy of propolis-containing formulations (PCFs) in preventing dental caries (PROSPERO: CRD420251246707).
methodsThis study adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Systematic database searches were conducted (December 11, 2025) without language or date restrictions. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing PCFs (dentifrices, mouthwashes, tablets, etc.) for caries-related outcomes compared with negative control or chlorhexidine-containing formulations (CHX). Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated using random-effects models. Meta-analyses were conducted for the outcomes plaque index (PI) and microbial counts in saliva or biofilm (MC). RoB 2 tool and GRADE were used as quality assessment tools.
resultsOf 1,919 identified records, 45 studies were included. Direct caries-related outcomes (caries indices) were rarely assessed and unsuitable for meta-analysis. PCFs significantly reduced PI compared with negative control (SMD[95% CI]: -1.11 [-1.52, -0.70], p < 0.01) and showed no significant difference compared with CHX (0.46 [-0.04, 0.95], p = 0.07). Similar patterns were observed for MC (PFCs vs. negative control (-1.45 [-2.43, -0.48], p = 0.004; PFCs vs. CHX: 0.38 [-0.11, 0.87], p = 0.13). Certainty of evidence was very low due to high risk of bias, inconsistency and indirectness.
conclusionPropolis-containing formulations may reduce plaque indices and oral microbial counts, suggesting a potential role in caries prevention. However, high-quality studies assessing direct caries outcomes are needed to properly address the research question. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Propolis-containing formulations are widely available and well accepted by patients. Clinicians may consider them as adjuncts to oral biofilm control but the evidence directly supporting their clinical efficacy in caries prevention is still not well established.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42593545What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.