## 3 Results and Discussion
### Wound-Healing Activity  
In the present study, NHDF cells were used in a scratch assay. Although all the preliminary characterization data showed that the propolisis extracts always presented better results than the other samples under study, it was decided to also evaluate the wound-healing activity for all the samples including the mixtures of honey with propolisis. It is already known that honey is not toxic against normal cells but is extremely cytotoxic to the tumor or cancer cells, as it was previously described [26]. Similar results were found in propolisis extracts, which demonstrated cytotoxicity in human fibrosarcoma and colon adenocarcinoma cells while presenting no cytotoxic action in normal human skin fibroblasts [27]. By using the microscopic images, it was possible to evaluate the evolution of the gap created in the confluent cell monolayer in the presence of the samples (Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Samples**} & **DPPH** & \(\beta\)**-Carotene Bleaching Test** & **Anti-Inflammatory Activity** \\ \cline{2-4}  & **\% Inhibition/100 g Sample 1  & **\% Inhibition/100 g Sample 1**  & **\% Inhibition/100 g Sample 1**  \\ \hline H1 & 0.431 \(\pm\) 0.023 & 0.809 \(\pm\) 0.042 & 20.625 \(\pm\) 0.884 \\ H2 & 0.133 \(\pm\) 0.019 & 0.684 \(\pm\) 0.032 & 23.438 \(\pm\) 3.094 \\ H3 & Not detected & 0.349 \(\pm\) 0.028 & Not detected \\ PE1 & 92.506 \(\pm\) 1.249 & 51.441 \(\pm\) 4.477 & 15.000 \(\pm\) 3.536 \\ PE2 & 92.012 \(\pm\) 0.258 & 48.660 \(\pm\) 1.876 & 31.250 \(\pm\) 1.768 \\ PE3 & 93.245 \(\pm\) 0.687 & 53.099 \(\pm\) 2.328 & 48.750 \(\pm\) 1.768 \\ HIPE1 0.3\% & 8.271 \(\pm\) 0.044 & 3.027 \(\pm\) 0.070 & 36.408 \(\pm\) 6.865 \\ HIPE1 0.5\% & 8.119 \(\pm\) 0.040 & 3.929 \(\pm\) 0.105 & 28.571 \(\pm\) 0.001 \\ HIPE2 0.3\% & 7.921 \(\pm\) 0.097 & 2.878 \(\pm\) 0.096 & 40.049 \(\pm\) 1.716 \\ HIPE2 0.5\% & 8.154 \(\pm\) 0.158 & 3.108 \(\pm\) 0.049 & 45.238 \(\pm\) 0.001 \\ HIPE3 0.3\% & 8.165 \(\pm\) 0.026 & 2.919 \(\pm\) 0.106 & 36.408 \(\pm\) 3.433 \\ HIPE3 0.5\% & 8.396 \(\pm\) 0.321 & 3.596 \(\pm\) 0.089 & 40.476 \(\pm\) 6.734 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of the samples. Analyzing the different images and comparing them to the control samples it is possible to say that the honey that shows better results after 36 h is Honey 2 (Table 3), while the propolis extract that presented better results was Propolis Extract 2 at 0.5% (Table 4); the best mixture is the honey with propolis--H1 PE3 0.3% (Table 5). Examining all the images, it is possible to observe that the cells continue alive when incubated with the samples. Moreover, it is clear that the samples promote cell migration, demonstrating the wound-healing potential of honey and propolis. Furthermore, by estimating the distance between the margins of the scratch (Table 6) the conclusions were the same. For all the samples  
In opposition to what was previously observed [1], in the present work the obtained results suggest that the effect of combining propolis with honey is not synergistic but just the combined effect of honey and propolis. This may be due to the chemical composition of each particular honey that will directly influence its bioactivities. In the honey samples now studied, the concentration in total phenolic compounds is relatively lower than in other samples of honey [1]. Moreover, flavonoids were not detected in the honey samples. These observations may explain the additive results observed for the mixtures of honey with propolis, suggesting the contribution of the propolis compounds to the biological activities. Considering all the obtained results, it is possible to verify that the samples that presented higher cell migration levels also presented higher bioactivity.