Premium
Efficacy of a newly developed mouth gel for xerostomia relief—A randomized double‐blind trial
Author(s) -
Barbe Anna Greta,
Ludwar Lena,
Hamacher Stefanie,
Noack Michael Johannes
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
oral diseases
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.953
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1601-0825
pISSN - 1354-523X
DOI - 10.1111/odi.13105
Subject(s) - medicine , crossover study , dry mouth , taste , randomized controlled trial , context (archaeology) , dentistry , saliva , placebo , psychology , paleontology , alternative medicine , pathology , neuroscience , biology
Objectives To determine the efficacy of a new symptom‐relieving mouth gel vs. a widely used control gel on xerostomic burden. Materials and methods This randomized, double‐blind, crossover trial investigated the efficacy of the test gel (Dr. Wolff Gel) vs. control (Biotene) in participants with xerostomia ( n = 32; mean age 60 years). Oral examinations were taken at baseline, and xerostomic visual analogue scales (xVAS), after‐use questionnaires and willingness to pay were investigated before and after use. Results Neither gel reduced xerostomic burden (xVAS) after 7‐day application. There was some preference for the test gel regarding taste and healthy gum feeling. After 1‐time application, there were differences favouring the test gel for symptom‐relieving effects between test gel and water ( p < 0.001), mucosal adhesion ( p < 0.001) and taste persistence ( p < 0.001). Overall symptomatic relief with the test gel lasted around 2 hr. Conclusions No mouth gel alleviated the overall xerostomic burden. Nevertheless, the test gel led to short‐term perceived symptomatic relief and improved patient‐centred outcomes as taste and perceived gum health. The gel will probably mainly be effective at moments that patients mostly suffer from xerostomia. Selection of a product will be based on perceived subjective differences and their value in the context of the overall xerostomic burden.