Acute effect of essential oil of Eugenia caryophyllata on cognition and pain in mice

Halder S, Mehta AK, Mediratta PK, Sharma KK
Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology, 2012


The essential oil of Eugenia caryophyllata (clove oil; Family: Myrtaceae) is used in dental care as an antiseptic and analgesic. The study aims to evaluate the effect of clove oil on experimental models of pain and cognition in mice. To observe the acute effects of clove oil at different doses, the elevated plus maze was used for the assessment of cognition, and the tail flick and formalin tests were used for the study of pain. The formalin test showed that clove oil (0.1 ml/kg, i.p.) demonstrated significantly reduced pain response in both the phases. The lower doses (0.025 and 0.05 ml/kg, i.p.) reduced the formalin-induced pain response significantly in the second phase only. The tail-flick test showed variable response. The dose 0.1 ml/kg, clove oil, significantly decreased the tail-flick latency at 30 min and this effect was reversed by naloxone (1 mg/kg). On the contrary, the dose 0.025 ml/kg of clove oil, at 30 and 60 min increased the mean tail-flick latency compared to control group, but this effect was not statistically significant. Yet naloxone significantly (p < 0.05) reversed the effect of clove oil 0.025 ml/kg at 30 min. Clove oil (0.025 and 0.05 ml/kg, i.p.) significantly reversed the scopolamine-induced retention memory deficit induced by scopolamine, but clove oil (0.1 ml/kg, i.p.) significantly reversed both acquisition as well as retention deficits in elevated plus maze induced by the scopolamine. Clove oil exhibits reduced pain response by a predominantly peripheral action as evidenced by formalin test and the tail flick test showed the involvement of opioid receptors. Clove oil also significantly improved scopolamine-induced retention memory deficit at all doses.


Halder S, Mehta AK, Mediratta PK, Et Al. Acute effect of essential oil of Eugenia caryophyllata on cognition and pain in mice. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2012;385(6):587-593.

[maxbutton id=”635″]