Fuente: PubMed "propolis" J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2026 Jan-Feb;16(1):8-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.10.028. Epub 2025 Nov 7.ABSTRACTOBJECTIVE: Dentin hypersensitivity is a worldwide epidemiological dental health issue, bioactive toothpaste has been demonstarted in alleviating dentin hypersensitivity along with propolis. Hence their comparison as desensitizing agents in dentinal tubule occlusion is carried out in this research. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Fluoridated Bioactive Glass dentifrice, Non-fluoridated Bioactive Glass dentifrice, and Propolis containing dentifrice in dentinal tubule occlusion using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and its resistance to acid.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an In vitro study design with permanent maxillary and mandibular premolars, which were divided into four groups. Group 1 - Fluoridated bioactive glass (FBaG) Toothpaste; Group 2 - Bioactive glass (BaG) Toothpaste; Group 3 - Propolis Toothpaste; Group 4 - Saline. Dentin discs were obtained from the samples. 37 % phosphoric acid was used to etch and expose the dentinal tubules. Rubber cup was used to apply the desensitizing agent. Samples were then subjected to 6 % citric acid. The degree of occlusion was evaluated using SEM after application of desensitizing agent and after application of citric acid.RESULTS: Statistical analysis was calculated and results obtained showed that specimens treated with FBaG and BaG showed highest degree of tubule occlusion with a mean value of (2.33) followed by Propolis with mean values of (3.00) and least number of occluded tubules after application of desensitizing agent. Propolis showed highest degree of occlusion with a mean value of (2.33) followed by FBaG (2.66) and BaG (3.00) after application of citric acid.CONCLUSION: Study concluded that FBaG and BaG-containing dentifrice showed a significant degree of dentinal tubule occlusion. Propolis demonstrated better resistance to acid attack.PMID:41281453 | PMC:PMC12639816 | DOI:10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.10.028