# Propolis as Natural Product in the Oral Cavity Bacterial Infections Treatment: A Systematic Review
## 4 Results
### Antibacterial Activity of Propolis in Oral Cavity Bacterial Infections
#### 4.2.2 In Vivo Studies
mutans_ count during the 1 st week and 4 th week was significantly reduced when compared to baseline scores. The researchers recorded a statistically significant difference between the baseline count and the 1 st week, 3 rd week and 4 th week follow up [106]. [PERSON] et al. (2021) examined the _in vivo_ effect of chlorhexidine and propolisis on _S. mutans_. The authors observed a decrease in the number of _S. mutans_ strains before and after treatment and showed that propolisis was almost as effective in its antimicrobial activity as chlorhexidine. The results were obtained based on the study of forty children classified into two study groups: the I group (twenty children used mouthwash with 0.12% chlorhexidine) and the II group (twenty children used mouthwash with 5% propolisis). Children were not allowed to use any oral rinse or toothpaste with chlorhexidine 7 days before any clinical procedures began. During the study, two samples were collected: 1 st at the beginning and 2 nd after the child rinsed their mouth with 10 mL of solution for 30 seconds. Then, colonies were counted from both obtained samples (CFU/mL). In the first group, the observed decrease was from 173.70 to 25.2, while in the II group, it was from 158.45 to 15.90. In addition, the following results were obtained: a decrease in the number of _S. mutans_ calculated between two sample collections expressed as percentage, for three experimental groups. The propolisis group and chlorhexidine group reduction ratios were 85.49% and 89.97%, respectively [105]. [PERSON] et al. [94] evaluated the efficiency of propolisis mouth rinses on oral pathogens. The authors determined propolisis as an effective agent against oral pathogens _S. mutans_ and _L. acidophilus_. The results were obtained in the study of one hundred and twenty patients who were classified into four groups: the I group (used hot ethanolic propolisis extract), the II group (used cold ethanolic propolisis extract), the III group (used chlorhexidine), and the IV group (used distilled water--placebo). There was a washout period of two weeks, and oral prophylaxis and polishing were performed. Subjects rinsed their oral cavities twice a day for 3 months. Saliva was collected at baseline, after 5 minutes, and after 1 h for a microbiological analysis. The colony count was performed using an electron microscope for _L. acidophilus_ and _S. mutans_ and was expressed as the number of CFU per mL of saliva. There were six concentrations of propolisis in each group (2 \(\mu\)g/mL; 5 \(\mu\)g/mL; 10 \(\mu\)g/mL; 25 \(\mu\)g/mL; 50 \(\mu\)g/mL and 75 \(\mu\)g/mL). For _S. mutans_, hot ethanol propolisis mouthwashes obtained the following results: 2 \(\mu\)g/mL (resistant); 5 \(\mu\)g/mL (8.25 \(\pm\) 1.20); 10 \(\mu\)g/mL (11.12 \(\pm\) 1.20); 25 \(\mu\)g/mL (12.05 \(\pm\) 1.01); 50 \(\mu\)g/mL (12.08 \(\pm\) 0.707) and 75 \(\mu\)g/mL (12.80 \(\pm\) 2.558). _S. mutans_ for cold ethanol propolisis mouthwashes obtained the following results: 2 \(\mu\)g/mL (resistant); 5 \(\mu\)g/mL (7.78 \(\pm\) 1.15); 10 \(\mu\)g/mL (8.50 \(\pm\) 0.56); 25 \(\mu\)g/mL (13.56 \(\pm\) 1.20); 50 \(\mu\)g/mL (14.40 \(\pm\) 0.894) and 75 \(\mu\)g/mL (15.60 \(\pm\) 1.949). For _L. acidophilus_, hot ethanol propolisis mouthwashes obtained the following results: 2 \(\mu\)g/mL (resistant); 5 \(\mu\)g/mL (8.25 \(\pm\) 1.25); 10 \(\mu\)g/mL (8.05 \(\pm\) 1.16); 25 \(\mu\)g/mL (13.60 \(\pm\) 1.14); 50 \(\mu\)g/mL (17.70 \(\pm\) 0. 10 \(\mu\)g/mL (8.45 \(\pm\) 2.20); 25 \(\mu\)g/mL (10.55 \(\pm\) 1.23); 50 \(\mu\)g/mL (15.20 \(\pm\) 1.789) and 75 \(\mu\)g/mL (17.60 \(\pm\) 3.130) [94]. [PERSON] et al. [25] analyzed the impact of 3% Brazilian propolis extract and 0.12% chlorhexidine on 39 bacterial species of oral microbiota. The authors suggest that the use of a 3% propolis mouth rinse can prevent morning breath.