TABLE 2.
Chemical compounds of Rosehip and potential therapeutic agents against different skin disorders.
| Specie | Active constituents | Activity/Disease | Study design | Dose | Participants | Treatment period | Description | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human trials | ||||||||
| Rosa sp | rose hip powder (Hyben Vital®) | facial wrinkles, skin moisture, and elasticity | randomized and double-blinded clinical study | 45 g/day | 35–65 years (n = 34) | 8 weeks | ↓crow’s feet wrinkles | Phetcharat et al. (2015) |
| ↑skin elasticity and moisture content | ||||||||
| ↑ cell longevity | ||||||||
| Rosa sp | Rose hip seed oil (Repavar®) | Post-surgical scars (erythema, dyschromia, atrophy, hypertrophy) | comparative, single center, prospective, double blinded | twice daily | 108 patients | 6 and 12 weeks | ↓atrophy, dyschromia and discoloration | Valerón-Almazán et al. (2015) |
| Animal studies | ||||||||
| R. canina | Dried rosehip shells | melanin biosynthesis | G1: water | 500 mg/kg bw diluted to 10% (w/v) | Six-weeks old female brownish guinea pigs | 35 days | ↓ UVB-induced pigmentation and tyrosinase activity | Fujii et al. (2011) |
| G2: Rosa extract | ||||||||
| R. davurica | Dried leaves | Antimicrobial activity against S. aureus, S. epidermidis, and P. acnes | 100, 300 and 1000 μg/20 μL R davurica extractin PBS applied on the skin | Eight-weeks-old male ICR mice | 24 h | ↓ thickness and number of infiltrating inflammatory cells in ears of Rosa-treated subjects | Hwang et al. (2020) | |
| ↓ inflammatory cytokine levels in ears by Rosa extract treatement | ||||||||
| R. damascena | Essential oil | Wound healing | G1: positive control (Phenytoin) | 2% essence of R. damascena in eucerin | 72 male Wistar rats | 14 days | ↓ wound size (99.2%) in G5, compared with the other treatment groups | Momtaz et al. (2023) |
| G2: negative control (Eucerin-treated rats) | ↑ anti-inflammatory effect in G6, followed by G5 | |||||||
| G3: Althaea officinalis L. EO | ↑ collagen deposition, neovascularization in G5 compared to G1 | |||||||
| G4: Lavandula angustifolia Mill EO | ||||||||
| G5: R. damascena EO | ||||||||
| G6: PHC (20:20:10:50) | ||||||||
| Repavar | Rosehip Seed oil | Prevention of epithelis after ardiotherapy | controlled and open clinical study | Topical application, 2x/day | Patients (n = 28) with neck and head cancer | ↑effectiveness in the prevention of epithelis | Borda and Iriarte (1975) | |
| Repavar | Rosehip Seed oil | Post-surgical scars | double blinded comparative study | Topical application 2x/day | Patients (n = 108) patients undergoing open surgical operations to remove skin tumors | 6 weeks | ↓discoloration | Valerón-Almazán et al. (2015) |
| ↓atrophy | ||||||||
| ↓erythema | ||||||||
| R. damascena | Flower powder extracted in sesame oil (1:5) | Burn wound healing | G1: control | Oily extract of flowers (33%) in a cream base (25% eucerin, 28% white petrolatum and 4% bees wax) | Male Wistar rats | 14 days | ↔ wound healing in G2 compared with G1 | Fahimi et al. (2015) |
| G2: R. damascena cream base | ↑ wound healing in G4 | |||||||
| G3: SS ream (1%) | ↓epithelialization and ↑infiltration of inflammatory cells in G2 | |||||||
| G4: PHC (M. sylvestris, S. nigrum and R. damascena extracts) | ↑ re-epithelialization, neovascularization and ↓ inflammatory cell infiltration in G4 | |||||||
| R. rubiginosa | Rosehip oil (30%) | Wound treatment | G1: normal saline | Topical rosehip oil in control and diabetic-rats group | Adult Wistar rats with STZ-induced diabetes (n = 24) | 10 days | ↑ wound healing score in both G2 (33 ± 1.9) and G4 (22 ± 2.5) | Nascimento et al. (2022) |
| G2: rosehip oil | ↓ expression of TNFα, IL-1β, and IL-6 in both G2 and G4 compared with control groups | |||||||
| G3: STZ, normal saline | ||||||||
| G4: topical rosehip oil | ||||||||
| R. rubiginosa | Ketoprofen-loaded rosehip oil nanocapsules | Acute and chronic ear edema | G1: AC (99.5%) | Oral treatment (10 mg/kg dose) | 6–8 weeks old C57/BL-6male mice | 9 days | ↓ear thickness in all treatment protocols in G6 compared with G1 (control) | Ramos et al. (2019) |
| G2: CO | ↑ drug release percentage of Keto-NC | |||||||
| G3: CO + canola oil | ↓ edema (%) and inflammation infiltrate (%) in G6 compared with other groups | |||||||
| G4:C)+ unloaded nanocapsules | ↓sulfhydryl content and ROS in G6 compared with G1 | |||||||
| G5: CO + Keto-nanocapsules | ↑SOD, CAT, and GPx in G6 compared with G1 | |||||||
| G6: CO + Keto-NC | ||||||||
Note: Ip., intraperitoneal injection; EO, essential oil; SS, silver sulfadiazine; PHC, poly herbal cream; STZ, streptozotocin; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; IL, interleukin; AC, acetone; CO, croton oil solubilized in acetone; KETO, ketoprofen; Keto-NC, Keto-loaded rosehip oil nanocapsules; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SOD, superoxide dismutase; CAT, catalase; GPx, Glutathione peroxidase.