4.3 Review

Efficacy of curcumin for recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGICAL TREATMENT
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 1225-1230

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2020.1819529

关键词

Curcumin; aphthous stomatitis; efficacy; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on the efficacy of curcumin in managing recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS). The included studies showed that curcumin has potential benefits in alleviating pain and reducing ulcer size in patients with RAS, and it was found to be as effective as triamcinolone in relieving signs and symptoms of RAS.
Background Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is the most common ulcerative lesion of the oral mucosa. The management of RAS is quite challenging with no definitive cure. Objective The present systematic review aimed to summarize the available evidence regarding the efficacy of curcumin in the management of RAS. Methods PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched in June 2020 for all relevant studies. Clinical trials that assessed the efficacy of curcumin for the management of RAS were included. The primary outcomes were pain and/or clinical improvement. Results Eight studies involving 439 subjects were included. The efficacy of curcumin was compared with 1% triamcinolone in four studies, glycerin vehicle in one study, placebo in one study, and honey in one study. Overall, the included studies reported a good efficacy of curcumin in reducing pain and ulcers size in patients with RAS. Four studies found curcumin as effective as triamcinolone in relieving signs and symptoms of RAS. Three studies reported superior results with curcumin as compared with control groups. Conclusion The limited available evidence suggests that curcumin have potential benefits in alleviating pain and accelerating healing in patients with RAS. Further well-designed clinical trials with standardized curcumin formulations are highly recommended.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据