PHARMACOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE WOUND HEALING POTENTIAL OF A POLYHERBAL GEL CONTAINING IXORA CHINENSIS AND MURRAYA PANICULATA EXTRACTS IN IN VIVO EXPERIMENTAL WOUND MODELS

Abstract

Objective: Wound repair depends on controlled inflammation, effective antimicrobial defence and tissue regeneration, yet current topical agents are limited by cost, bacterial resistance and local adverse effects. This study developed a polyherbal gel containing methanolic leaf extracts of Ixora chinensis and Murraya paniculata and evaluated its wound healing potential in rats. Methods: Shade-dried leaves of I. chinensis (400 g) and M. paniculata (350 g) were extracted with methanol in a Soxhlet apparatus. The extracts were screened for phytochemical classes, and total phenolic content (Folin–Ciocalteu method) and total flavonoid content (aluminium chloride method) were determined. Carbopol 940/carboxymethyl cellulose gels were prepared with each extract alone and with both extracts combined (2% total extract) and were assessed for pH, viscosity, spreadability and skin irritation. Antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli was tested by agar well diffusion. In a full-thickness excision wound model, Wistar albino rats (n = 6 per group) were treated with gel base (control), either single-extract gel, the polyherbal gel, or 1% gentamicin gel, and wound contraction was recorded on days 4, 8, 12, 16 and 21. Results: Extractive yields were 7.90% (I. chinensis) and 8.57% (M. paniculata). M. paniculata contained more phenolics (24.55 vs 18.70 mg GAE/g) and flavonoids (29.17 vs 21.60 mg RE/g). All gels had a pH of 6.3–6.7 and caused no skin irritation. The polyherbal gel produced the largest inhibition zone against E. coli (11 mm, versus 6 mm and 8 mm for the single-extract gels). On day 21, wound closure was 13.10% in the control group, 62.80% and 67.00% with the single-extract gels, 76.30% with the polyherbal gel and 91.50% with gentamicin gel [Author to confirm: add p-values once the ANOVA/post hoc analysis is done]. Conclusion: The combined gel produced greater wound contraction than either single-extract gel, although less than gentamicin gel. These findings support further evaluation of the combination, including histological, dose–response and mechanistic studies.