4.3 Article

COMPARISON OF MELATONIN AND CURCUMIN EFFECT AT THE LIGHT AND DARK PERIODS ON REGENERATION OF SCIATIC NERVE CRUSH INJURY IN RATS

Journal

EXCLI JOURNAL
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages 653-665

Publisher

EXCLI JOURNAL MANAGING OFFICE
DOI: 10.17179/excli2019-1369

Keywords

Melatonin; curcumin; nerve injury; anti-inflammatory; antioxidant; crush

Categories

Funding

  1. Vice-Chancellor for Research and Technology of Guilan University of Medical Sciences [96061510]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Being one of the acute clinical problems, peripheral nerve injury can bring about a number of consequences including severe disability, reduced Quality of life (QOL) and immense costs. Currently, melatonin and curcumin are widely applied because of their immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, neuro-protective and antioxidant properties. The present study aims to compare the effects of melatonin and curcumin during light and dark periods on sciatic nerve crush injury repair. Accordingly, rats received IP injections of curcumin (100 mg/kg) and melatonin (10 mg/kg) over two periods of light (9:00 a. m.) and dark (9:00 p. m.) for 4 weeks. In order to evaluate rats, functional (walking track analysis and electrophysiological measurements), histomorphometric and gastrocnemius muscle mass investigations were administered. No statistically significant difference was identified between dark and light curcumin groups while curcumin groups displayed better results than did melatonin groups. In addition, dark melatonin group displayed better results than the light melatonin. On the whole, this study found that melatonin and curcumin can be used to quicken neural recovery and help treat nerve injury. It was also found that better neuroregeneration or nerve regeneration was induced when rats were treated by melatonin during the dark period while effects and injection time did not correlate in curcumin application.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available