Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences 4(2): 176-185, 2012
ISSN: 2041-0778
© Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2012
Submitted: November 09, 2011
Accepted: December 09, 2011
Published: March 10, 2012
Effect of Myrtus communis on Healing of the Experimental Skin Wounds on Rats
and its Comparison with Zinc Oxide
1
Ali Rezaie, 2Daryoush Mohajeri, 3Behnam Khamene, 4Mehrdad Nazeri,
5
Ramin Shishehgar and 6Solmaz Zakhireh
1
Department of Clinical Science,
2
Department of Pathobiology,
3
Postgraduate Student of Veterinary Medicine,
4
Young Researchers Club, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
5
Department of Biology, Ahar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahar, Iran
6
Department of Basic Science, Faculty of Chemistry, Ahar Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Ahar, Iran
Abstract: Wound healing in some chronic diseases and disorders has become one of the challenges of medical
science and for this reason using the new compounds to accelerate wound healing is produced will be
welcomed. In the meantime, the Myrtus herb has antibacterial and anti-inflammatory, antiseptic and anticongestive effects. Based on this information, the purpose of this study was to studying the effect of this plant
extract on process of wound healing. In this study, after induction of anesthesia in 48 male rats weighing 200
to 250 g and approximately one and a half months of age, using a biopsy punch with a diameter of 23 mm
circular wound was created on the dorsal skin region of each of them. Then the rats were divided into four
groups, each groups continued healing process with 5 and 10% extract of Myrtus herb mg/cm 2, 35 dose oncedaily, eucerin (drugs) and control (distilled water). Test duration was 28 days, wound diameter measurement
using digital image analysis and Histopathological study on days 0, 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 with biopsy two rats
from each group were took. These rats were removed from the investigation process after obtaining biopsies.
Obtained Results were analyzed with ANOVA and TUKEY test (p<0.05). The results revealed that treatment
with low-dose group of Myrtus herb extract (5%) most shrinkage of wound area and also from the perspective
of Histopathological change. in the second and third week, tissue had better organization than most other groups
(p<0.05), but the group treated with high doses of Myrtus herb extract (10%) had less wound shrinkage and
organization.
Key words: Healing, myrtus communis, rat, skin wounds, zinc oxide
"-terpinyl acetate (0.5%), p-cymene (0.8%), (-terpinene
(0.6%), terpinen-4-ol (0.3%), methyl chavicol (0.7%) and
methyl iso-eugenol (0.2%), along with minor components
(Chevalier, 1996; Newall et al., 1996). Myrtus communis
oil is tested non-toxic, non-irritant, non-sensitising and
non-phototoxic. Myrtus oil is used with great benefit on
de-vitalized, irritated and inflamed skin as well as in case
of acne and generally problematic skin. Even though it is
especially recommended for oily skin, it can be used on
all skin types since its action being mainly balancing and
revitalizing. Because of its sedative qualities, it is a good
remedy in cases of insomnia and nervous conditions. It is
especially recommended for children and older people in
cases of respiratory afflictions, chronic lung conditions,
colds, infections and bronchial catarrh (Muria et al.,
1995). Zinc oxide is an inorganic compound with the
formula ZnO. It is a white powder that is insoluble in
water. Zinc is an essential trace element of which about
2 g is found in the adult human body. At least 200
enzymes in different biological systems are dependent on
INTRODUCTION
Myrtus communis, the myrtle belongs to the family of
the Myrtaceae, and is a beautiful evergreen bush or small
tree with small elliptic, fragrant, deep green leaves and
pure white flowers. The flowers are extremely beautiful,
star-like with 5 white petals and numerous protruding
stamens. Although a native of North Africa, it is today
naturalized around the Mediterranean basin and
commercial oils are produced in France, Tunisia and
Morocco. The oil has been known and valued from
ancient times for its delicate, pleasant, clear and fresh
scent. The plant is assigned to the goddess Aphrodite
(Venus). Myrtus communis oil has the main components
"-pinene (18%), limonene (20%), 1.8 cineole (5%),
linalool (16%), linalyl acetate (8.16%), myrtenyl acetate
(9%), geranyl acetate (3%), "-humulene (2%), "-terpineol
(1.5%), trans-caryophyllene (1%), methyl eugenol (1%),
trans-$-ocimene (0.9%), "-terpinolene (0.9%), along with
minor quantities of eugenol (0.4%), neryl acetate (0.4%),
Corresponding Author: Ali Rezaie, Department of Clinical Science, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
176
Curr. Res. J. Bio. Sci., 4(2): 176-185, 2012
the presence of the zinc ion. Among these zinc-dependent
enzymes, DNA and RNA polymerases are crucial during
tissue repair as they affect cell proliferation and protein
synthesis. In accordance with the biochemical role of zinc
a reduced synthesis of DNA, reduced deposition of
granulation tissue, decreased tensile strengths in skin
incisions, and delayed closure rates in excised wounds in
zinc-deficient rats have been demonstrated (Prasad and
Oberleas, 1974; Sandstead et al., 1970). Zinc
supplementation restored to normal the tensile Strengths
of the incisional and healing rates of the excisional
wounds (Sandstead et al., 1970). It has been clinically
shown that the healing of leg ulcers is delayed in patients
with subnormal serum-zinc levels (Haley, 1979). Zinc
given as oral and topical zinc sulfate or as topical zinc
oxide normalizes impaired healing ability in these patients
(Golden et al., 1980; Haley, 1979; Stromberg and Agren,
1984).
The objective of this study was to determination of
the Effect of Myrtus communis on healing of the
experimental skin wounds on rats and its comparison with
zinc oxide.
biopsy punch were inducted. In this study rout of
wounding was excisional wounding that in way
epidermis, dermis, hypoderm and Panniculus Carnosus
completely were removed. After wounding, rats were
divided into five groups of ten.
Group 1: (rats from No. 1-10) received high doses
(10%) of herbal extract
Group 2: (rats from No. 11-20) received low doses (5%)
of herbal extract
Group 3: (rats from No. 21-30) as positive control
group received zinc oxide 20%
Group 4: (rats from No. 31-40) received eucerin
Group 5: (rats from No. 41-50) as control not received
any drug
Samples were fixed in the formalin 10% and sent to
pathology laboratory.
Post-operation measures: After biopsy and washing
wound area with normal saline, all drugs were
administrated as local way by an applicator in the wound
area. This administration continued for 28 days. 35 mg
per cm2 of wound area Myrtus communis and zinc oxide
ointments and eucerin through local way were
administrated to each group with exception group 5.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Animals: This study was conducted in Islamic Azad
University during 2011.
In this study, 50 female wistar rats weighted 180-220
g and aged 12 weeks old were selected.
Sampling: On days 0, 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 of research,
samples as tissue specimens from biopsy areas were
collected and sent to pathology laboratory. Sampling was
done under anesthesia condition and this anesthesia was
induced by Ketamine and Rampon. Sampling was exerted
by scalpel. Samples were fixed into formalin 10%. In lab,
after processing and staining to H&E method slides were
achieved. Slides were investigated by a light microscope.
Data were analyzed by SPSS ver.17 and MATLAB ver.
7.8 and TUKEY test.
Pre-operation measures: The operation (induction
wound in the skin) required general anesthesia, analgesia
and muscle relaxation. In term, we used of Ketamine
(10%, 40 mg/kg) and xylazine (2%, 10 mg/kg) to
induction of anesthesia and pre-operation drugs,
respectively. Administration route was IM from hind
limb.
RESULTS
Operation measures: After preparation the dorsal skin of
rats (distinct between scapula to ischial tuberosity), a
wound in circle shaped with 23 mm in diameter and by
Geometric findings: From day 1 to day 3, wound area
was expanded increasingly in all groups that this
Table 1: Comparison of groups from wound area aspect on day 3
Descriptive statistics
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean
-------------------------------------------Days.3
N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Statistic
SE
SD
Control
10
1.8144
5.7069
7.5213
6.560470
0.1970758
0.6232085
Eucerin
10
1.9820
5.1509
7.1329
6.297320
0.2407432
0.7612968
Zinc Ox.
10
1.4144
5.1837
6.5981
5.828960
0.1548517
0.4896842
Low D.
10
1.8884
5.1942
7.0826
5.859270
0.1931686
0.6108528
High D.
10
1.7628
5.4328
7.1956
6.257160
0.2086076
0.6596751
Table 2: Comparison of wound areas mean among understudying groups on day 3 by ANOVA
df
MS
Day 3
SS
Between groups
3.887
4
0.972
Within groups
18.145
45
0.403
Total
22.032
49
-
177
F
2.410
-
Sig.
0.063
-
Curr. Res. J. Bio. Sci., 4(2): 176-185, 2012
Table 3: Comparison of wound areas mean among understudying groups on day 3 by TUKEY test
Multiple comparisons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Day 3 - Tukey HSD
9% Confidence interval
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(I) Drug
(J) Drugs
Mean difference (I-J)
SE
Sig.
Lower bound
Upper bound
Control
Eucerin
0.2631500
0.2839764
0.885
- 0.543755
1.070055
Zinc Ox.
0.7315100
0.2839764
0.092
- 0.075395
1.538415
Low D.
0.7012000
0.2839764
0.116
- 0.105705
1.508105
High D.
0.3033100
0.2839764
0.822
- 0.503595
1.110215
Eucerin
Control
- 0.2631500
0.2839764
0.885
- 1.070055
0.543755
Zinc Ox.
0.4683600
0.2839764
0.475
- 0.338545
1.275265
Low D.
0.4380500
0.2839764
0.541
- 0.368855
1.244955
High D.
0.0401600
0.2839764
1.000
- 0.766745
0.847065
Zinc Ox.
Control
- 0.7315100
0.2839764
0.092
- 1.538415
0.075395
Eucerin
- 0.4683600
0.2839764
0.475
- 1.275265
0.338545
Low D.
- 0.0303100
0.2839764
1.000
- 0.837215
0.776595
High D.
- 0.4282000
0.2839764
0.563
- 1.235105
0.378705
Low D.
Control
- 0.7012000
0.2839764
0.116
- 1.508105
0.105705
Eucerin
- 0.4380500
0.2839764
0.541
- 1.244955
0.368855
Zinc Ox.
0.0303100
0.2839764
1.000
- 0.776595
0.837215
High D
- 0.3978900
0.2839764
0.630
- 1.204795
0.409015
High D.
Control
- 0.3033100
0.2839764
0.822
- 1.110215
0.503595
Eucerin
- 0.0401600
0.2839764
1.000
- 0.847065
0.766745
Zinc Ox.
0.4282000
0.2839764
0.563
- 0.378705
1.235105
Low D.
0.3978900
0.2839764
0.630
- 0.409015
1.204795
Table 4: Comparison of groups from wound area aspect on day 7
Descriptive Statistics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean
-------------------------------------------Days.3
N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Statistic
SE
SD
Control
8
1.8479
5.8325
7.6804
6.606338
0.2442781
0.6909229
Eucerin
8
2.5190
3.3303
5.8493
4.726538
0.3301269
0.9337400
Zinc Ox.
8
1.6269
3.9486
5.5755
4.776675
0.1738620
0.4917559
Low D.
8
2.1097
1.0389
3.1486
2.200625
0.2767668
0.7828148
High D.
8
1.1382
5.1430
6.2812
5.795975
0.1268857
0.3588870
Table 5: Comparison of wound areas mean among understudying groups on day 7 by ANOVA
Day 7
SS
df
MS
Between groups
88.122
4
22.031
Within groups
16.329
35
0.467
Total
104.451
39
-
F
47.222
-
Sig.
0.000
-
day 3, none of the drugs used have preference over
another.
ANOVA test results also present non-significant data
on day 3 between groups.
With comparison of above data revealed that there
was significant difference between control and other
groups on day 7. Also this difference is seen between low
dose and zinc oxide groups.
According to the results on day 14 revealed that there
was significant difference between groups. Note that
average deviation was lower in low dose group than
others.
Based on data resulted from TUKEY test revealed
that low dose and zinc oxide groups have showed same
results and good results than other groups. Note that
eucerin showed good and significant results than control
group.
phenomenon because of matching with inflammation
phase is justifiable. However, in this mean on day 3,
treatment group 3 had lowest voluminosity than other
area, so that on day 7; the lowest wound area was
belonged to same group. After this group, other groups
from reduction in wound size aspect were including
groups 3, 1, 4 and control, respectively. On day 14 with
exception control and high dose groups, others had good
reduction in wound size so that low dose, zinc oxide and
eucerin were in 1 to 3 occupations respectively. On day
21, groups 3 and control showed partial same results with
low dose and group 4 respectively. Finally on day 28, all
rats have showed good results that it is not an
unexpectable issue but only group 1 have showed low
results. The results are detailed in the Table 1-15.
Based on data showed on Table 1 revealed that there
was no significant difference between groups because on
178
Curr. Res. J. Bio. Sci., 4(2): 176-185, 2012
Table 6: Comparison of wound areas mean among understudying groups on day 7 by TUKEY test
Day 7- Tukey HSD
----------------------------------(I) Drug
(J) Drugs
Control
Eucerin
Zinc Ox
Low D.
High D.
Eucerin
Control
Zinc Ox.
Low D.
High D.
Zinc Ox.
Control
Eucerin
Low D.
High D.
Low D.
Control
Eucerin
Zinc Ox.
High D
High D.
Control
Eucerin
Zinc Ox.
Low D.
Multiple comparisons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9% Confidence interval
--------------------------------------------------------Mean difference (I-J)
SE
Sig.
Lower bound
Upper bound
1.8798000*
0.3415163
0.000
0.897920
2.861680
1.8296625*
0.3415163
0.000
0.847783
2.811542
4.4057125*
0.3415163
0.000
3.423833
5.387592
0.8103625
0.3415163
0.147
- 0.171517
1.792242
*
- 1.8798000
0.3415163
0.000
- 2.861680
- 0.897920
- 0.0501375
0.3415163
1.000
- 1.032017
0.931742
2.5259125*
0.3415163
0.000
1.544033
3.507792
- 1.0694375*
0.3415163
0.027
- 2.051317
- 0.087558
- 1.8296625*
0.3415163
0.000
- 2.811542
- 0.847783
0.0501375
0.3415163
1.000
- 0.931742
1.032017
*
2.5760500
0.3415163
0.000
1.594170
3.557930
- 1.0193000*
0.3415163
0.039
- 2.001180
- 0.037420
- 4.4057125*
0.3415163
0.000
- 5.387592
- 3.423833
- 2.5259125*
0.3415163
0.000
- 3.507792
- 1.544033
*
- 2.5760500
0.3415163
0.000
- 3.557930
- 1.594170
*
- 3.5953500
0.3415163
0.000
- 4.57723 0
- 2.613470
- 0.8103625
0.3415163
0.147
- 1.792242
0.171517
1.0694375*
0.3415163
0.027
0.087558
2.051317
1.0193000*
0.3415163
0.039
0.037420
2.001180
3.5953500*
0.3415163
0.000
2.613470
4.577230
Table 7: Comparison of groups from wound area aspect on day 14
Descriptive Statistics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean
------------------------------------------------Days.14
N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Statistic
SE
SD
Control
6
2.7257
3.2379
5.9636
5.068617
0.4289118
1.0506151
Eucerin
6
2.7189
0.7746
3.4935
2.268817
0.4105021
1.0055207
Zinc Ox.
6
0.5461
0.6792
1.2253
1.029633
0.0809612
0.1983137
Low D.
6
0.3977
0.5787
0.9764
0.719017
0.0674807
0.1652932
High D.
6
0.6402
3.7470
4.3872
4.068417
0.1026365
0.2514069
Table 8: Comparison of wound areas mean among understudying groups on day 14 by ANOVA
Day 14
SS
df
MS
Between groups
86.156
4
21.539
Within groups
11.224
25
0.449
Total
97.380
29
-
F
47.977
-
Sig.
0.000
-
Table 9: Comparison of wound areas mean among understudying groups on day 14 by TUKEY test
Multiple comparisons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Day 14- Tukey HSD
9% Confidence interval
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(I) Drug
(J) Drugs
Mean difference (I-J)
SE
Sig.
Lower bound
Upper bound
Control
Eucerin
2.7998000*
0.3868436
0.000
1.663690
3.935910
Zinc Ox.
4.0389833*
0.3868436
0.000
2.902873
5.175093
Low D.
4.3496000*
0.3868436
0.000
3.213490
5.485710
High D.
1.0002000
0.3868436
0.104
- 0.135910
2.136310
*
Eucerin
Control
- 2.7998000
0.3868436
0.000
- 3.935910
- 1.663690
*
Zinc Ox.
1.2391833
0.3868436
0.028
0.103073
2.375293
Low D.
1.5498000*
0.3868436
0.004
0.413690
2.685910
High D.
- 1.7996000*
0.3868436
0.001
- 2.935710
- 0.663490
Zinc Ox.
Control
- 4.0389833*
0.3868436
0.000
- 5.175093
- 2.902873
Eucerin
- 1.2391833*
0.3868436
0.028
- 2.375293
- 0.103073
Low D.
0.3106167
0.3868436
0.927
- 0.825493
1.446727
High D
.-3.0387833*
0.3868436
0.000
- 4.174893
- 1.902673
Low D.
Control
- 4.3496000*
0.3868436
0.000
- 5.485710
- 3.213490
Eucerin
- 1.5498000*
0.3868436
0.004
- 2.685910
- 0.413690
Zinc Ox
.-0.3106167
0.3868436
0.927
- 1.446727
0.825493
*
High D
.-3.3494000
0.3868436
0.000
- 4.485510
- 2.213290
High D
Control
- 1.0002000
0.3868436
0.104
- 2.136310
0.135910
Eucerin
1.7996000*
0.3868436
0.001
0.663490
2.935710
Zinc Ox.
3.0387833*
0.3868436
0.000
1.902673
4.174893
Low D.
3.3494000*
0.3868436
0.000
2.213290
4.485510
179
Curr. Res. J. Bio. Sci., 4(2): 176-185, 2012
Table 10: Comparison of groups from wound area aspect on day 21
Descriptive Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean
---------------------------------------------Days.21
N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Statistic
SE
SD
Control
4
0.6260
1.3253
1.9513
1.712200
0.1383356
0.2766712
Eucerin
4
1.6260
0.3253
1.9513
1.287175
0.3846173
0.7692346
Zinc Ox
4
0.4818
0.5367
1.0185
0.805500
0.1060464
0.2120929
Low D.
4
0.3287
0.4782
0.8069
0.642925
0.0736676
0.1473351
High D.
4
0.8262
3.1583
3.9845
3.456575
0.1845136
0.3690273
Table 11:Comparison of wound areas mean among understudying groups on day 21 by ANOVA
Day 21
SS
df
MS
Between groups
20.411
4
5.103
Within groups
2.613
15
0.174
Total
23.024
19
-
F
29.28
-
Sig.
80.000
-
Table 12: Comparison of wound areas mean among understudying groups on day 21 by TUKEY test
Multiple comparisons
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Day 21- Tukey HSD
9% Confidence interval
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(I) Drug
(J) Drugs
Mean difference (I-J)
SE
Sig.
Lower bound
Upper bound
Control
Eucerin
0.4250250
0.2951510
0.613
- 0.486379
1.336429
Zinc Ox.
0.9067000
0.2951510
0.052
- 0.004704
1.818104
Low D.
1.0692750*
0.2951510
0.018
0.157871
1.980679
High D.
- 1.7443750*
0.2951510
0.000
- 2.655779
- 0.832971
Eucerin
Control
- 0.4250250
0.2951510
0.613
- 1.336429
0.486379
Zinc Ox.
0.4816750
0.2951510
0.501
- 0.429729
1.393079
Low D.
0.6442500
0.2951510
0.238
- 0.267154
1.555654
High D.
- 2.1694000*
0.2951510
0.000
- 3.080804
- 1.257996
Zinc Ox
Control
- 0.9067000
0.2951510
0.052
- 1.818104
0.004704
Eucerin
- 0.4816750
0.2951510
0.501
- 1.393079
0.429729
Low D.
0.1625750
0.2951510
0.980
- 0.748829
1.073979
High D.
- 2.6510750*
0.2951510
0.000
- 3.562479
- 1.739671
*
Low D.
Control
- 1.0692750
0.2951510
0.018
- 1.980679
- 0.157871
Eucerin
- 0.6442500
0.2951510
0.238
- 1.555654
0.267154
Zinc Ox
.-0.1625750
0.2951510
0.980
- 1.073979
0.748829
High D.
- 2.8136500*
0.2951510
0.000
- 3.725054
- 1.902246
*
High D.
Control
1.7443750
0.2951510
0.000
0.832971
2.655779
Eucerin
2.1694000*
0.2951510
0.000
1.257996
3.080804
Zinc Ox.
2.6510750*
0.2951510
0.000
1.739671
3.562479
*
Low D.
2.8136500
0.2951510
0.000
1.902246
3.725054
Table 13: Comparison of groups from wound area aspect on day 28
Descriptive statistics
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean
-------------------------------------------Days.28
N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Statistic
SE
SD
Control
2
0.1838
0.4184
0.6022
0.510300
0.0919000
0.1299662
Eucerin
2
0.1184
0.0838
0.2022
0.143000
0.0592000
0.0837214
Zinc Ox.
2
0.0617
0.0089
0.0706
0.039750
0.0308500
0.0436285
Low D.
2
0.0343
0.0063
0.0406
0.023450
0.0171500
0.0242538
High D.
2
0.1262
2.8583
2.9845
2.921400
0.0631000
0.0892369
Table 14: Comparison of wound areas mean among understudying groups on day 28 by ANOVA
Day 28
SS
df
MS
Between groups
12.341
4
3.08544
Within groups
0.034
5
0.007
Total
12.376
9
On day 21 there was seen similarity in mean of
control and eucerin groups. Also there is a similarity
between low dose and zinc oxide groups.
Finally on day 28, complete treatment in low dose
and zinc oxide was obviously showed. In eucerin group
F
9.034
Sig.
0.000
also not seen wound. Only on high dose and control
groups there was a wound.
Histopathologic findings: Figure 1-5 with comments are
showed.
180
Curr. Res. J. Bio. Sci., 4(2): 176-185, 2012
Table 15: Comparison of wound areas mean among understudying groups on day 28 by TUKEY test
Multiple comparisons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Day 28- Tukey HSD
9% Confidence interval
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(I) Drug
(J) Drugs
Mean difference (I-J)
SE
Sig.
Lower bound
Upper bound
Control
Eucerin
0.36730000*
0.08289199
0.034
0.0347784
0.6998216
*
Zinc Ox.
0.47055000
0.08289199
0.012
0.1380284
0.8030716
Low D.
0.48685000*
0.08289199
0.011
0.1543284
0.8193716
High D.
- 2.41110000*
0.08289199
0.000
- 2.7436216
- 2.0785784
*
Eucerin
Control
- 0.36730000
0.08289199
0.034
- 0.6998216
- 0.0347784
Zinc Ox.
0.10325000
0.08289199
0.731
- 0.2292716
0.4357716
Low D.
0.11955000
0.08289199
0.632
- 0.2129716
0.4520716
High D.
- 2.77840000*
0.08289199
0.000
- 3.1109216
- 2.4458784
Zinc Ox.
Control
- 0.47055000*
0.08289199
0.012
- 0.8030716
- 0.1380284
Eucerin
- 0.10325000
0.08289199
0.731
- 0.4357716
0.2292716
Low D.
0.01630000
0.08289199
1.000
- 0.3162216
0.3488216
High D.
- 2.88165000*
0.08289199
0.000
- 3.2141716
- 2.5491284
Low D.
Control
- 0.48685000*
0.08289199
0.011
- 0.8193716
- 0.1543284
Eucerin
- 0.11955000
0.08289199
0.632
- 0.4520716
0.2129716
Zinc Ox.
- 0.01630000
0.08289199
1.000
- 0.3488216
0.3162216
High D.
- 2.89795000*
0.08289199
0.000
- 3.2304716
- 2.5654284
*
High D.
Control
2.41110000
0.08289199
0.000
2.0785784
2.7436216
Eucerin
2.77840000*
0.08289199
0.000
2.4458784
3.1109216
Zinc Ox.
2.88165000*
0.08289199
0.000
2.5491284
3.2141716
*
Low D.
2.89795000
0.08289199
0.000
2.5654284
3.2304716
Fig. 1: A, microscopic view from wound area immediately after surgery. B, microscopic view from wound area in healing from
control group on day 3. C, microscopic view from wound area in healing from eucerin treatment group on day 3. D,
microscopic view from wound area in healing from zinc oxide treatment group on day 3. E, microscopic view from wound
area from Myrtus communis 5% treatment group on day 3. F, microscopic view from wound area from Myrtus communis
10% treatment group on day 3
181
Curr. Res. J. Bio. Sci., 4(2): 176-185, 2012
Fig. 2: A, microscopic view from wound area in healing from control group on day 7. B, microscopic view from wound area in
healing from eucerin treatment group on day 7. C, microscopic view from wound area in healing from zinc oxide treatment
group on day 7. D, microscopic view from wound area from Myrtus communis 5% treatment group on day 7. E, microscopic
view from wound area from Myrtus communis 10% treatment group on day 7
Fig. 3: A, microscopic view from wound area in healing from control group on day 14. B, microscopic view from wound area in
healing from eucerin treatment group on day 14. C, microscopic view from wound area in healing from zinc oxide treatment
group on day 14. D, microscopic view from wound area from Myrtus communis 5% treatment group on day 14. E,
microscopic view from wound area from Myrtus communis 10% treatment group on day 14
182
Curr. Res. J. Bio. Sci., 4(2): 176-185, 2012
Fig. 4: A, microscopic view from wound area in healing from control group on day 21. B, microscopic view from wound area in
healing from eucerin treatment group on day 21. C, microscopic view from wound area in healing from zinc oxide treatment
group on day 21. D, microscopic view from wound area from Myrtus communis 5% treatment group on day 21. E,
microscopic view from wound area from Myrtus communis 10% treatment group on day 21
Fig. 5: A, microscopic view from wound area in healing from control group on day 28. B, microscopic view from wound area in
healing from eucerin treatment group on day 28. C, microscopic view from wound area in healing from zinc oxide treatment
group on day 28. D, microscopic view from wound area from Myrtus communis 5% treatment group on day 28. Microscopic
view from wound area from Myrtus communis 10% treatment group on day 28 was similar to same group on previous days
183
Curr. Res. J. Bio. Sci., 4(2): 176-185, 2012
DISCUSSION
in total duration showed better results than the control
group. Although Eucerin is considered a neutral substance
but there are certainly legitimate reasons for this
significant difference that possibly creating a protective
layer over the wound and reduce entry into the wound
infectious agents can be effective in this. However for
obtaining accurate results, specific experiments are
requiring.
In conclusion can be mention that Myrtus communis
is good replacement against other chemical drugs which
are used widely.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs,
are common medicines used to treatment of signs after
surgery. NSAIDs stop cells making prostaglandins.
Prostaglandins are chemicals released by injured cells.
They cause inflammation and swelling and they sensitize
nerve endings, which can lead to pain. If you make less
prostaglandin, you have less inflammation and less pain.
By stopping cells making prostaglandins, NSAIDs relieve
the symptoms of pain and inflammation. These drugs
have more side effects thus use of other replacements
such as herbal extracts which had anti-inflammatory
groups. After times, low dose treatment group with
veryhigh acceleration starts to reduce in size of the wound
effects is very important. On the basis of different studies
conducted so far regarding Myrtus communis, it has been
observed that, this herb has antibacterial and antifungal
(Gharnieh, 1994; Saboor, 1995; Salehniya, 1988), antiinflammatory (Kindersley, 1995; Kindersley, 1996;
Zargari, 1995), sooding (Kindersley, 1996; Zargari,
1995), and analgesic effects. Note that in this study
revealed Myrtus communis 5% has more positive effect
than Myrtus communis 5%. This reason not clearly
understood and needs to other researches. Zinc oxide also
used topically on wounds is a folk remedy believed to
promote healing. However, there is to date no clear
scientific proof as to its effectiveness on wound healing in
humans or experimental animals which are not zinc
deficient (Murray and Rosenthal, 1968; Norman et al.,
1975; Sandstead et al., 1970; Williams et al., 1979). In
one study that carried out by Williams et al. (1979)
revealed that no significant difference in rate of reepithelialization and healing was observed between zinctreated and control wounds studied for more than 21 days.
A significantly more rapid healing was found in cephalad
wounds in comparison to caudad wound. Serum zinc
levels in the rats showed a significant rise of 85% over the
3-week period, indicating zinc absorption through the
wound. Based on results of this trial, extract about 5%
cream is accelerated process of skin wound healing,
However the zinc oxide ointment also been shown to have
good effect. Only unpredictable weak results was the 10%
Myrtus plant extract ointment that finally shown weak
effects on wound healing than control groups.
independent study is needed to justify this results but
According to the author's personal experiences and studies
it is likely that Toxic effects of high doses of Myrtus plant
extract caused the poisoning of treated animals.
Fibroblasts are responsible for the synthesis of collagen
and connective tissue fibers. cases the maturation of
connective tissue. Since the Myrtus extract stimulate the
activity of fibroblasts and macrophages, this two cells in
interaction with each others with the stimulation of
regenerated vessel to granulation tissues, Makes to
healing more quickly (Luisa and Dipietro, 2003). Eucerin
REFERENCES
Chevalier, A., 1996. The Encyclopedia of Medicinal
Plants. Dorling Kindereley, London, pp: 61.
Gharnieh, M., 1994. Evaluation of the antimicrobial
effects of traditional herbal medical. Thesis No. 139.
Shaheed Beheshti College of Pharmacy.
Golden, M.H.N., B.E. Golden and A.A. Jackson, 1980.
Skin breakdown in kwashiorkor responds to zinc.
Lancet, 1: 1256.
Haley, J.V., 1979. Zinc sulfate and wound healing. J.
Surg. Res., 27: 168.
Kindersley, D., 1995. Encyclopedia of Herbs and Their
Uses. 1st Edn., Dorling Kindereley, London, pp: 316.
Kindersley, D., 1996. Encyclopedia of Medicinal Plants.
1st Edn., Dorling Kindereley, London, pp: 236.
Luisa, A. and L. Dipietro, 2003. Burns wound healing:
Methods and protocols (methode in molecular
medicine). Humana Press Inc., 1: 341-382.
Muria, M., Y. Tamayama and S. Nishibe, 1995.
Phenylethanoids in the herb of Plantago lanceolata
and inhibitory effect on arachidonic acid- induced
mouse ear edema. Plant Med., 61(5): 479-80.
Murray, J. and S. Rosenthal, 1968. The effect of locally
applied zinc and aluminum on healing incised
wounds. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet., 126: 1298.
Newall, C., L. Anderson and J. David Philipson, 1996.
Herbal Medicines: A Guide for Health Care
Professionals. The Pharmaceutical Press, London,
pp: 65.
Norman, J.N., A. Rahmat and G. Smith, 1975. Etfect of
supplements of zinc salts on the healing of
granulating wounds in the rat and guinea pig. J.
Nutr., 105: 815.
Prasad, A.S. and D. Oberleas, 1974. Thymidine kinase
activity and incorporation of thymidine into DNA in
zinc-deficient tissue. J. Lab. Clin. Med., 83: 634.
Saboor, B., 1995. Evaluation of the antimicrobial effects
of traditional herbal medicinis in infectious of mouth
and teeth and preparation on herbal mouth wash.
Shaheed Behesthi College Pharmacy. Thesis No.
373.
184
Curr. Res. J. Bio. Sci., 4(2): 176-185, 2012
Salehniya, A.N., 1988. ldentificationi and preparation of
the active ingredients of the green Myrtle and
evaluation of the effect of this herb on pathogenic
microorganism. College of Pharmacy, Tehran
University of Medical Sciences. Thesis No. 2677.
Sandstead, H.H., V.C. Lanier, G.H. Shephard and
D.D. Gillespie, 1970. Zinc and wound healing.
Effects of zinc deficiency and zinc supplementation.
Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 23: 514-519.
Stromberg, H.E. and M.S. Agren, 1984. Topical zinc
oxide treatment improves arterial and venous leg
ulcers. Br. J. Dermatol., 111(4): 461-468.
Williams, K.J., R. Meltzer, R.A. Brown, Y. Tanaka and
R.C. Chiu, 1979. The effect of topically applied zinc
on the healing of open wounds. J. Surg. Res., 27(1):
62-67.
Zargari, A., 1995. Herbal Medicines. Tehran University
Publication, 2: 301-306.
185