JIOH on LinkedIn JIOH on Facebook
  • Users Online: 219
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 571-578

10% propolis as a subgingival irrigation agent after gingival curettage: A comparative study

Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sri Pramestri Lastianny
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Denta 1, Sekip Utara, Yogyakarta 55281.
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/JIOH.JIOH_65_21

Rights and Permissions

Aim: Gingival curettage is a surgical periodontal therapy that aims at eliminating periodontal pockets. To enhance the output of this treatment, subgingival irrigation after curettage could be used as adjuvant therapy. Propolis, as a natural remedy, has antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties, which makes it a promising candidate as a subgingival irrigation agent. The purpose of the study was to compare the effect of 10% propolis and 1% tetracycline as subgingival irrigation agents after curettage on plaque index (PI), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and concentration of interleukin-1β (IL-1β)Materials and Methods: This comparative analytical study was performed on a total of six participants, with each participant presenting with two sites of periodontal pockets. The periodontal pockets were assigned to two treatment groups: patients receiving 10% propolis after curettage (Group A) and patients receiving 1% tetracycline after curettage (Group B). PI, PPD, BOP, and concentration of IL-1β were recorded at baseline on day 0 before curettage and on day 21 after curettage. The measured parameters were analyzed with chi-square analysis, Mann-Whitney, and independent T-test at different intervals. Results: Statistical analysis showed that group A (curettage + subgingival irrigation with 10% propolis) had better improvement on PI and greater reduction of PPD, BOP, and concentration of IL-1β on day 21, compared with group B (curettage + subgingival irrigation with 1% tetracycline) with P value of 0.014, 0.003, 0.007, and 0.000, respectively (P < 0.05). Conclusion: 10% propolis as a subgingival irrigation agent was more effective compared with 1% tetracycline in improving clinical parameters of periodontal tissue and concentration of IL-1β on patients with chronic periodontitis.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded37    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal