The effect of biopolymer gel derived from sugarcane on healing of traumatic oral ulcers: an experimental study

Barbosa, Lívia Mirelle; Oliveira, Lívia Maria Lopes de; Queiroz, Camylla Pinheiro Verissimo; Freitas, Bruna Andrade Santos; Lima, Tarciana Maria Pereira de; Aguiar, José Lamartine de Andrade; Medeiros Júnior, Martinho Dinoá; Perez, Danyel Elias da Cruz; Godoy, Gustavo Pina

doi:10.1590/acb390724

Lívia Mirelle Barbosa ^** Corresponding author: dra.liviabarbosa@gmail.com

Substantive scientific and intellectual contributions to the study

Conception and design

Acquisition of data

Analysis and interpretation of data

Technical procedures

Statistics analysis

Manuscript writing

Critical revision

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – Recife (PE) – Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8992-2890

Lívia Maria Lopes de Oliveira

Substantive scientific and intellectual contributions to the study

Conception and design

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – Recife (PE) – Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7579-9254

Camylla Pinheiro Verissimo Queiroz

Acquisition of data

Technical procedures

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – Recife (PE) – Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6600-8468

Bruna Andrade Santos Freitas

Acquisition of data

Technical procedures

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – Recife (PE) – Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8534-2792

Tarciana Maria Pereira de Lima

Acquisition of data

Technical procedures

Manuscript preparation

Manuscript writing

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – Recife (PE) – Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9740-9536

José Lamartine de Andrade Aguiar

Substantive scientific and intellectual contributions to the study

Conception and design

Technical procedures

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – Recife (PE) – Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4493-7359

Martinho Dinoá Medeiros Júnior

Substantive scientific and intellectual contributions to the study

Conception and design

Technical procedures

Manuscript preparation

Manuscript writing

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – Recife (PE) – Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3497-8678

Danyel Elias da Cruz Perez

Substantive scientific and intellectual contributions to the study

Conception and design

Histopathological examinations

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – Recife (PE) – Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4591-4645

Gustavo Pina Godoy

Substantive scientific and intellectual contributions to the study

Conception and design

Histopathological examinations

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – Recife (PE) – Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7648-0683

* Corresponding author: dra.liviabarbosa@gmail.com

Section editor: Sigmar Rode https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4261-4217

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest related to this study.

About the authors

Barbosa LM, Aguiar JLA, Medeiros Júnior MD, Perez DEC and Godoy GP are PhD.

Oliveira LML and Lima TMP are Master.

Queiroz CPV and Freitas BAS are graduated.

	Group 1 (negative control group)	Group 2 (positive control group)	Group 3 (experimental group)
P-value	p^C C Paired Student’s t-test; = 0.006^* * Significant difference of 5%;	p^C C Paired Student’s t-test; < 0.001^* * Significant difference of 5%;	p^C C Paired Student’s t-test; = 0.262
Evaluation	Average ± SD	Average ± SD	Average ± SD
Evaluation	Median (P25, P75)	Median (P25, P75)	Median (P25, P75)
Beginning	308.33 ± 86.60^A A Kruskal-Wallis’ test with comparisons with the aforementioned test;	238.00 ± 31.95^B B F (analysis of variance) test with comparisons to the Tukey’s test;	253.07 ± 22.12^A A Kruskal-Wallis’ test with comparisons with the aforementioned test;
Beginning	322.00 (220.00; 370.00)	233.00 (207.00; 253.00)	254.00 (239.00; 267.00)
End	279.73 ± 88.71^A A Kruskal-Wallis’ test with comparisons with the aforementioned test;	222.53 ± 25.78^B B F (analysis of variance) test with comparisons to the Tukey’s test;	248.00 ± 24.96^A A Kruskal-Wallis’ test with comparisons with the aforementioned test;
End	309.00 (167.00; 368.00)	219.00 (200.00; 234.00)	247.00 (229.00; 262.00)
Mean Differences
Absolute (I – F)	28.60^A A Kruskal-Wallis’ test with comparisons with the aforementioned test;	15.47^A A Kruskal-Wallis’ test with comparisons with the aforementioned test; ^B B F (analysis of variance) test with comparisons to the Tukey’s test;	5.07^B B F (analysis of variance) test with comparisons to the Tukey’s test;
Percentage	10.00	6.23	1.84

Days of evaluation	Group 1 Negative control	Group 2 Positive control	Group 3 experimental	P-value
	Average ± SD	Average ± SD	Average ± SD
	Median (P25, P75)	Median (P25, P75)	Median (P25, P75)
P-value	p^# # Kruskal-Wallis’ test to make comparisons between times of evaluation in each group with comparisons with the aforementioned test; = 0.003^* * significant difference of 5%;	p^# # Kruskal-Wallis’ test to make comparisons between times of evaluation in each group with comparisons with the aforementioned test; = 0.002^* * significant difference of 5%;	p^# # Kruskal-Wallis’ test to make comparisons between times of evaluation in each group with comparisons with the aforementioned test; = 0.003^* * significant difference of 5%;
Day 1	16.80 ± 2.95^* * significant difference of 5%;	16.37 ± 2.41^* * significant difference of 5%;	15.99 ± 2.67^* * significant difference of 5%;	p^! ! Kruskal-Wallis’ test for comparison between groups in each evaluation period with the aforementioned test; = 0.925
Day 1	17.50 (13.81; 19.45)	15.62 (14.20; 18.92)	15.73 (13.47; 18.63)
Average absolute difference (I – F)	2.83	3.26	3,65	p^! ! Kruskal-Wallis’ test for comparison between groups in each evaluation period with the aforementioned test; = 0.925
Average percentage difference (I – F)	14.42	16.62	18.58	p^! ! Kruskal-Wallis’ test for comparison between groups in each evaluation period with the aforementioned test; = 0.925
P-value	p^@ @ Wilcoxon’s test pared between before and during each evaluation period for each group; = 0.080	p^@ @ Wilcoxon’s test pared between before and during each evaluation period for each group; = 0.043^* * significant difference of 5%;	p^@ @ Wilcoxon’s test pared between before and during each evaluation period for each group; = 0.043^* * significant difference of 5%;
3 days	11.70 ± 2.03^* * significant difference of 5%;	9.62 ± 2.87^* * significant difference of 5%;	10.47 ± 2.92^* * significant difference of 5%;	p^! ! Kruskal-Wallis’ test for comparison between groups in each evaluation period with the aforementioned test; = 0.512
	11.40 (10.00; 13.55)	10.24 (7.15; 11.79)	10.64 (7.55; 13.31)
Average absolute difference (I – F)	7.93	10.01	9,16	p^! ! Kruskal-Wallis’ test for comparison between groups in each evaluation period with the aforementioned test; = 0.512
Average percentage difference (I – F)	40.42	50.99	46.67	p^! ! Kruskal-Wallis’ test for comparison between groups in each evaluation period with the aforementioned test; = 0.512
P-value	p^@ @ Wilcoxon’s test pared between before and during each evaluation period for each group; = 0.042^* * significant difference of 5%;	p^@ @ Wilcoxon’s test pared between before and during each evaluation period for each group; = 0.043^* * significant difference of 5%;	p^@ @ Wilcoxon’s test pared between before and during each evaluation period for each group; = 0.043^* * significant difference of 5%;
7 days	1.84 ± 2.47^* * significant difference of 5%;	4.79 ± 0.41^* * significant difference of 5%;	1.85 ± 1.21^* * significant difference of 5%;	p^! ! Kruskal-Wallis’ test for comparison between groups in each evaluation period with the aforementioned test; = 0.049^* * significant difference of 5%;
	1.38 (0.00; 3.92)	4.79 (4.47; 5.11)	1.33 (0.82; 3.13)
Average absolute differences (I – F)	17.79^* * significant difference of 5%;	14.84^* * significant difference of 5%;	17.78^* * significant difference of 5%;	p^! ! Kruskal-Wallis’ test for comparison between groups in each evaluation period with the aforementioned test; = 0.049^* * significant difference of 5%;
Average percentage differences (I – F)	90.61^* * significant difference of 5%;	75.60^* * significant difference of 5%;	90.60^* * significant difference of 5%;	p^! ! Kruskal-Wallis’ test for comparison between groups in each evaluation period with the aforementioned test; = 0.049^* * significant difference of 5%;
P-value	p^@ @ Wilcoxon’s test pared between before and during each evaluation period for each group; = 0.042^* * significant difference of 5%;	p^@ @ Wilcoxon’s test pared between before and during each evaluation period for each group; = 0.042^* * significant difference of 5%;	p^@ @ Wilcoxon’s test pared between before and during each evaluation period for each group; = 0.043^* * significant difference of 5%;

Evaluation days	Variables	Group					P-value
		Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group total
		(n = 5)	(n = 5)	(n = 5)	(n = 15)
	III	2	-	-		2
	Type of inflammatory infiltration						**
Day 1	Acute	5	5	5		15
	Chronic	-	-	-		-
	Type of inflammatory infiltration						p^{^!} = 1.000
Day 3	Acute	1	-	-		1
	Chronic	4	5	5		14
	Type of inflammatory infiltration						p^! = 1.000
Day 7	Acute	1	-	-		1
	Chronic	4	5	5		14
Day 1	Intensity of inflammatory infiltration						p^! = 0.004^* * Significant difference of 5%;
	I	3	-	-		3
	II	-	5	2		7
	III	2	-	3		6
Day 3	Intensity of inflammatory infiltration						p^! = 0.190
	I	-	2	-		2
	II	2	-	3		5
	III	3	3	2		8
Day 7	Intensity of inflammatory infiltration						p^! = 0.134
	I	1	1	4		6
	II	2	4	1		7

Evaluationdays	Degree ofre-epithelialization	Group					P-value
		Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group total
		(n = 5)	(n = 5)	(n = 5)	(n = 15)
	3	3	-	3		6
Day 1	1	5	5	5		15	p^! ! Kruskal-Wallis’ test with comparisons with aforementioned test; = 1.000
	2	-	-	-		-
	3	-	-	-		-
		(A)	(B)	(A)
Day 3	1	-	5	-		5	p^! ! Kruskal-Wallis’ test with comparisons with aforementioned test; = 0.001^* * Significant difference of 5%;
	2	5	-	5		10
	3	-	-	-		-
Day 7	1	-	-	-		-	p^! ! Kruskal-Wallis’ test with comparisons with aforementioned test; = 0.097
	2	2	5	2		9

[1] * Corresponding author: dra.liviabarbosa@gmail.com

Brasil

Brasil

The effect of biopolymer gel derived from sugarcane on healing of traumatic oral ulcers: an experimental study

ABSTRACT

Purpose:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusions: