4.7 Review

The efficacy of herbal medicine in the treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials

Journal

PHYTOTHERAPY RESEARCH
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 672-685

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ptr.7332

Keywords

aphthous ulcer; herbal medicine; medicinal plants; recurrent aphthous stomatitis; systematic review

Funding

  1. Isfahan University of Medical Sciences [199178]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review indicates that herbal medicines have significant effects in reducing pain, ulcer size, and healing time in the treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Few adverse events were reported in the herbal treatment group, suggesting that medicinal plants and phytochemicals are effective and safe agents for RAS treatment.
This systematic review was undertaken with the main aim of assessing the therapeutic effects of herbal medicines in recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS). A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to July 2021 to identify randomized clinical trials investigated the effects of herbal medicines on RAS. Thirty-three papers comprising 2,113 patients met the eligibility criteria, of which 30 studies had a high quality based on the Jadad scale. Totally, 22 out of 30 studies which assessed the pain showed that herbal agents significantly decreased the pain compared with the control group or placebo. In 17 out of 25 studies that evaluated ulcer size, herbal agents significantly reduced the size of ulcers compared with the control or placebo groups. In 15 out of 18 studies that assessed the healing time, herbal agents significantly reduced healing time in the intervention groups compared with the placebo or control groups. Few adverse events were reported only in four studies. Findings of the current review indicated medicinal plants and phytochemicals as effective and safe agents that for the treatment of RAS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available