PD patients suffer from xerostomia, dysphagia, and drooling. Subjective dysphagia is associated with drooling and xerostomia, but drooling prevalence or intensity does not influence xerostomia symptoms. Tremor, dyskinesia, and disease duration, which characterise PD, affect xerostomia. Additionally, food intake, sleep, age, LEDD, and daytime (peaks at 9 a.m. and 9 p.m.) increase xerostomia occurrence. This knowledge may improve dentists' advice to patients and aid development of patient-centred, symptom-relieving products.

Objectives: To determine the subjective effectiveness of oilpulling on medicationinduced xerostomia with regard to symptom relief, quality of life, taste, mucosal moisture and oral parameters. Materials and Methods:In a randomized, single-blind, crossover trial in participants with medication-induced xerostomia (n = 26; mean age 64.71 (standard deviation (SD) 15.60) years), we investigated oilpulling efficacy (sunflower oil) versus mineral water after one-week use. Xerostomic burden (visual analogue scale, VAS), symptom relief and oral examinations (gingivitis index, plaque index, whole stimulated and unstimulated salivation rates) were investigated at baseline and the end of the follow-up. Results:Oilpulling reduced the xerostomic burden (baseline value 6.46 (SD 1.80), decreasing to 4.93 (SD 2.97)) (p = .003), without difference between oil versus water (p = .067). Baseline values for water were 6.08 (SD 2.17) decreasing to 5.72 (SD 2.17) (p = .124). Compared to water, oil made swallowing easier (p = .031), caused a pleasant mouthfeel (p = .031) and caused less waking up at night (p = .031). Effectiveness (p = .002) and duration (p = .007) of symptom relief showed differences between products in favour of oil. Conclusions:Oil pulling alleviated the overall xerostomic burden. In the comparison between oil and water, no difference regarding symptom relief could be shown.Patients should be informed of possibilities and limitations of oilpulling as inexpensive and easy-to-obtain alternative to commercially available products for short-term symptom relief.

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.

No abstract

No abstract