Comparison between new saliva stimulants in patients with dry mouth: a placebo‐controlled double‐blind crossover study

Aagaard, Anna; Godiksen, S.; Teglers, P. T.; Schiødt, M; Glenert, Ulla

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0714.1992.tb01369.x

Cited by 46 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Half of the participants wished to con tinue chewing gum to promote oral health even though chewing gum was unacceptable as a confectionery or habit. This finding is supported by other studies [Aagaard et al, 1992;Rindum et al, 1993]. The stain index detected in creases in the stain levels for those subjects in the test gum group who had significant stain at the start o f the study, sug gesting that chlorhexidine staining is related to other poten tiating factors, such as cigarette smoking and drinking tea and coffee [Praytino et al, 1979], The subjects recognised the presence of stain and its presence reduced the value they placed on their appearance but yet did not influence their willingness to chew gum.…”

Section: Attitudes To Gum Chewing and Side-effectssupporting

confidence: 83%

The Effect of Chlorhexidine/Xylitol Chewing-Gum on Cariogenic Salivary Microf lora: A Clinical Trial in Elderly Patients

Simons¹,

Beighton²,

Jones³

1997

Caries Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of 14-day use of either a chlorhexidine/xylitol or a xylitol chewing-gum on salivary levels of mutans streptococci, lactobacilli, and yeasts were determined for 53 subjects (mean age 79.49 ± 7.7 years) participating in this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Salivary flow rates and enamel staining were measured and the attitudes of the subjects to gum chewing were evaluated by the use of structured questionnaires. The chlorhexidine/xylitol gum significantly reduced the salivary levels of mutans streptococci (p < 0.0001), lactobacilli (p < 0.05) and yeasts (p < 0.05) while the xylitol placebo gum produced significant reductions in mutans streptococci (p < 0.01) only. The study population found chewing gum twice per day for 10 min an acceptable method of receiving medication and improving oral health. Prior to gum use participants recognised persistent symptoms of dry mouth and their subjective evaluation of dry mouth was significantly (p < 0.001) related to the number of prescribed medications with xerostomic side-effects. The desire to continue gum use was significantly related to the subjects’ evaluation of their oral dryness at baseline and to their perceived oral health gain from gum usage. Only those participants with stained enamel at baseline exhibited increased enamel staining following chlorhexidine/xylitol gum usage.

show abstract

Section: Attitudes To Gum Chewing and Side-effectssupporting

confidence: 83%

The Effect of Chlorhexidine/Xylitol Chewing-Gum on Cariogenic Salivary Microf lora: A Clinical Trial in Elderly Patients

Simons¹,

Beighton²,

Jones³

1997

Caries Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results suggest that the increase of the salivary flow by mechanical stimulation can be enhanced by chewing gums by combining with flavorings that allow the stimulation of chemoreceptors [20]. The data presented are supported by studies comparing chewing gums with and without flavor, which show that flavored gums produce a greater increase in salivary flow [20,21]. Besides of this, it has been estimated that 85% of salivary flow is related to gustatory stimulation, while 15% to masticatory stimulation [22].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Effect of Chewing Gum Containing CPP-ACP on Salivary Flow and Buffer Capacity: An in vivo Study

Pereira

Maciel

Monteiro

et al. 2016

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate salivary flow and buffer capacity by means of mechanical and chemical-mechanical stimuli, through the use of chewing gums. Material and Methods: The study was a cross-sectional study with 12 volunteers, divided into three groups, in three phases: Group A: paraffin gum; Group B: Chewing gum without sucrose, flavored (Trident ® ); Group C: Flavored chewing gum, without sucrose and amorphous calcium casein-phosphate phosphopeptide (Trident Total ® ). The stimulated total saliva was collected after 5 minutes of mastication of one of the products and the volume was expressed in mL / min. The same sample was submitted to pH measurement with the use of a digital potentiometer, where the results were classified in normal buffer capacity (final pH between 5.0 and 7.0) or low (final pH <4.0). The results were evaluated regarding the normality of the sample distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test), Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test. Results: Chewing gums increased the salivary flow of the volunteers, when compared to the control group (paraffin) (1.53 mL / min), differing statistically from the group, although there was no difference between Trident ® (2.09 mL / Min) and Trident Total ® (2.06mL / min). Regarding the buffer capacity, the values obtained were 6.94 (paraffin), 6.99 (Trident ® ) and 6.93 (Trident Total ® ), with no difference between groups (p = 0.713). Conclusion: It was concluded that chewing gums, with and without CPP-ACP, increased the salivary flow in relation to the control group. In relation to buffer capacity the values obtained for chewing gums with and without CPP-ACP, are shown to be within the normal range.

show abstract

“…The second is mucus. Its lubricant qualities are conferred by water and mucin, which prevent epithelial dehydration, facilitate chewing and swallowing, contribute to taste perception and aid speech [1,32,57]. Its antibody and antimicrobial content (e.g.…”

Section: Physiology Of Salivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Xerostomia: aetiology and management in cancer patients

Holmes

1998

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although oral complications are common sequelae of cancer/cancer treatment, only sporadic research is published in the literature. It is clear that 'routine' oral hygiene measures are inadequate; a little time and effort may, however, reduce oral discomfort. This is particularly true in the case of xerostomia, which is often thought to be a relatively minor symptom with few deleterious effects. Many patients, however, find xerostomia a significant cause of distress, and for this reason alone, health care professionals require knowledge and appreciation of the pathology and aetiology of the condition and approaches to its management. This paper reviews the physiology of salivation and the aetiology of xerostomia and considers the ways in which the condition can be managed.

show abstract

Comparison between new saliva stimulants in patients with dry mouth: a placebo‐controlled double‐blind crossover study

Cited by 46 publications

References 11 publications

The Effect of Chlorhexidine/Xylitol Chewing-Gum on Cariogenic Salivary Microf lora: A Clinical Trial in Elderly Patients

The Effect of Chlorhexidine/Xylitol Chewing-Gum on Cariogenic Salivary Microf lora: A Clinical Trial in Elderly Patients

Effect of Chewing Gum Containing CPP-ACP on Salivary Flow and Buffer Capacity: An in vivo Study

Xerostomia: aetiology and management in cancer patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About