The systematic review assessed the efficacy and safety of propolis for treating recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS). The review adopted the PICO framework to examine the effects of topical and systemic propolis on RAS while also comparing it to established treatments, placebos, or no treatment. The main focus was on the healing time, pain levels, adverse effects, the likelihood of ulcer recurrence, and accompanying symptoms such as redness. The team included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, excluding case reports and studies on oral ulcers other than RAS. In May 2022, the review team comprehensively searched nine databases and trial registries following the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database under the registration number CRD42022327123. Two review authors conducted a comprehensive and autonomous search for pertinent papers and extracted essential data. Where data permitted, the team utilised Review Manager 5 to conduct a random-effects meta-analysis, assessing the risk of bias and heterogeneity of the included studies. Where possible, the GRADE Pro programme was used to assess the certainty of the evidence for all the outcomes. This review included 10 RCTs, comprising 825 participants aged between 18 and 69 years. Seven studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of propolis when applied topically, all of which used different formulations, concentrations, and carriers. The remaining three studies assessed systemic administration in tablet form. The duration of investigations ranged from 5 days to 3 years. The review team classified two studies as having an overall ‘high risk’ of bias, while the remaining studies were categorised as having an overall ‘uncertain risk’. The overall certainty of the evidence was ‘very low’. The results indicate that topical and systemic propolis may decrease the duration of healing, alleviate pain, and reduce redness in patients with RAS compared to a placebo. However, the certainty of the evidence is very low. These may be due to the high risk of bias, substantial heterogeneity, and limited sample sizes in the included studies. For these reasons, the results of this review should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the limited number of adverse effects observed suggests that propolis may have a favourable safety profile when used for a short period in treating RAS.

Introduction: This randomized clinical trial was designed to investigate the effect of carbon dioxide laser on the treatment of minor recurrent aphthous stomatitis (miRAS) as a painful and common oral ulcer. Methods: Fifteen patients with miRAS entered into this study after compliance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The patients were assigned to three groups of pulsed CO2 laser, continuous CO2 laser, and control. A pulsed CO2 laser with power of 261 W and pulse duration of 180 microseconds and continuous CO2 lasers with the power of 1 W and radiation duration of 5-10 seconds were used. In the control group, topical triamcinolone ointment of 0.1% was used. The degree of pain was measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS). The patients were evaluated in terms of pain intensity before and immediately after the treatment and at follow-up hours, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after the intervention, and changes in the size of the ulcers were measured before the treatment and on third, fifth, and seventh days. Results: The effect of CO2 laser with pulsed and continuous radiation on the pain intensity of aphthous lesions, immediately after the treatment and at subsequent follow-up hours were similar and even better than the control group (P<0.05). All three treatments had a similar effect on the size of the ulcer, which was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Conclusion: The results of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that the carbon dioxide laser, whether with pulsed radiation or continuous radiation compared to the control group, had a better impact on the pain relief of aphthous lesions.