This pilot study evaluated whether a propolis-based topical solution improves soft-tissue healing after tooth extraction. Thirteen patients requiring extraction of two comparable teeth on opposite sides of the mouth were enrolled in a split-mouth design, in which one extraction site received the propolis solution while the other served as an internal control. The test site was treated with the propolis solution three times daily for seven days, while the control site received only saline rinses. Healing was tracked using 3D intraoral scans obtained before extraction and on days 7 and 14 afterward, allowing the percentage of socket closure to be measured objectively over time. Postoperative pain was also assessed using a standard visual pain scale on days 1, 3, and 7. The study aimed to determine whether this propolis-based formulation could serve as a natural, low-cost adjunct to standard post-extraction care to support faster tissue repair.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Cooperative adult patients willing to accept the study protocol
• Minors with a cooperative parent/legal guardian providing consent
• Non-surgical extraction of bilaterally positioned teeth
• Low-to-moderate extraction difficulty per the Pederson scale
• Systemically healthy, with no history of systemic disease

Exclusion Criteria:

• Non-consenting patients
• Failure to attend follow-up appointments per protocol
• Heavy smokers (>10 pack-years)
• Systemic disease (e.g., diabetes mellitus, immunosuppressive syndromes)
• Current use of contraceptive medication
• Systemic antibiotic therapy within the previous 3 months
• Anticoagulant therapy within the previous 4 weeks
• Requirement for antibiotic prophylaxis
• Pregnant or breastfeeding women
• Known allergy to honey or bee-related products
• Known allergy to local anesthetics used in dental procedures
• Higher-difficulty extractions requiring sutures or other hemostatic measures

Individual participant data sharing beyond what is reported in this article is not currently planned. The informed consent obtained from participants covered publication of anonymized results and clinical images within the manuscript but did not include explicit provisions for sharing de-identified, individual-level data with third-party researchers. Additionally, given the small sample size (12-13 participants) drawn from a single institution, there is an elevated risk that combinations of variables in a shared dataset could allow indirect re-identification of participants.