Satisfaction in complete denture wearers with and without adhesives: A randomized, crossover, double-blind clinical trial

Torres-Sánchez, Carlos; Montoya-Salazar, Vanessa; Torrés-Lagares, Daniel; Gutiérrez-Pérez, José-Luís; Jiménez-Castellanos, Emilio

doi:10.4317/jced.54871

Cited by 15 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result differs from that reported in previous studies. Torres-Sánchez et al (2018) carried out a crossover doubleblind comparison of groups using 2 types of denture adhesives and no adhesive, and in the subjective evaluations, they found that the level of patient satisfaction was greater in the groups using denture adhesives. Marin et al (2014) used subjective evaluations in a crossover RCT with new dentures and reported improved comfort of wearing mandibular dentures, retention of mandibular dentures, general satisfaction, and chewing as a result of denture adhesive use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subjective Evaluation of Denture Adhesives: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Ohwada

Minakuchi

Sato

et al. 2019

JDR Clinical & Translational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Many reports show that denture adhesives improve the retention and stability of dentures. However, few randomized controlled trials have examined the effects of denture adhesives. Objective: This 10-center randomized controlled trial with parallel groups involving 200 edentulous patients wearing complete dentures aimed to evaluate the effects of short-term use of cream and powder denture adhesives. Methods: Patients were allocated into 2 cream- and powder-type adhesive groups and 1 control group. Intervention groups were treated with the 2 adhesives (1 each), and the control group received saline solution. Adhesive or control was applied to the denture-mucosal surface for 4 d, and data at baseline and after day 4 of intervention (i.e., 8 meals) were obtained. Patient satisfaction was evaluated with a 100-mm visual analog scale. Oral health–related quality of life was measured with the Japanese version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous Patients. Perceived chewing ability was evaluated by a questionnaire regarding ease of chewing and swallowing food. Between-group comparisons were performed with Kruskal-Wallis tests with the Mann-Whitney U test adjusted by Bonferroni correction. Within-group comparisons of pre- and postintervention measurements were performed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Intention-to-treat analysis was also performed. Results: Between-group comparisons showed no significant differences for general satisfaction or Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous Patients. However, significant differences in satisfaction with various denture functions with cream- and powder-type adhesives were seen in pre- and postintervention comparisons ( P < 0.05). Significant differences were also observed for perceived chewing ability of hard foods ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: These results suggest that although denture adhesives do not invariably improve denture function, they do affect subjective evaluations and possibly chewing of hard foods. Therefore, the effects of denture adhesive use are insufficient to resolve any fundamental dissatisfaction with dentures ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01712802 ). Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study suggest that denture adhesives should be applied under certain conditions; however, an appropriate diagnosis is important before application. These practice-based data provide information to establish evidence-based guidelines for applying denture adhesives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subjective Evaluation of Denture Adhesives: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Ohwada

Minakuchi

Sato

et al. 2019

JDR Clinical & Translational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A total of 1133 patients with an average age of 67 years were included in the studies, they were individuals in which the total dentures already had a time of use or who accepted the manufacture of new dental prostheses. Most studies were conducted in universities (Kelsey et al, 1997;Uysal et al, 1998;Kulak et al, 2005;Pradíes et al, 2009;Koronis et al, 2012;Munoz et al, 2012;Bartlett et al, 2013;Marin et al, 2014;Guimarães et al, 2018;Torres-Sánchez et al, 2018;Ohwada et al, 2020) and only one in a private practice (Psillakis et al, 2004). Most studies included patients of both sexes (Kelsey et al, 1997;Uysal et al, 1998;Kulak et al, 2005;Pradíes et al, 2009;Munoz et al, 2012;Koronis et al, 2012;Bartlett et al, 2013;Ohwada et al, 2020).…”

Section: General Data From Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies included patients of both sexes (Kelsey et al, 1997;Uysal et al, 1998;Kulak et al, 2005;Pradíes et al, 2009;Munoz et al, 2012;Koronis et al, 2012;Bartlett et al, 2013;Ohwada et al, 2020). Eight studies randomly divided individuals into groups to compare different brands of adhesive and all selected studies assessed patient satisfaction using questionnaires and scales (Kelsey et al, 1997;Uysal et al, 1998;Psillakis et al, 2004;Kulak et al, 2005;Pradíes et al, 2009;Koronis et al, 2012;Munoz et al, 2012;Bartlett et al, 2013;Marin et al, 2014;Guimarães et al, 2018;Torres-Sánchez et al, 2018;Nishi et al, 2020;Ohwada et al, 2020). Most studies included patients who had less than 7 years of total prosthesis use (Kelsey et al, 1997;Uysal et al, 1998;Psillakis et al, 2004;Kulak et al, 2005;Pradíes et al, 2009;Mañes et al, 2011;Munoz et al, 2012;Bartlett et al, 2013;Guimarães et al, 2018;Torres-Sánchez et al, 2018;Ohwada et al, 2020) and five studies made new prostheses (Koronis et al, 2012;Marin et al, 2014;AlRumaih et al, 2017;Nishi et al, 2020;Ohwada et al, 2020).…”

Section: General Data From Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Satisfaction of users of full dentures with adhesive: A systematic review of the literature

Magalhães

Barion

Gonçalves

et al. 2021

RSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To review the literature systematically in relation to the effectiveness of the adhesive for dental prostheses presented in terms of patient satisfaction and to evaluate the differences regarding the use or not of them. Methodology: A search was carried out in the databases PubMed / MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science according to the criteria of Preferred Reports for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. The PICO question was used to address the following specific question: "Patients who use adhesives on full denture satisfaction?". Results: Sixteen studies with a total of 1133 patients with age average of 67 years were included; in relation to masticatory capacity, improvement was found in feeding, increased vertical movement in the mandible and less intrusion of the prosthesis. As for satisfaction, studies have shown greater comfort, improvement in social, psychological, quality of life and oral health and self-confidence. No serious side effects have been reported and only oral adverse events have been coded. Conclusion: Although adhesives for dental prostheses do not improve their function, that is, they are not capable of problems related to anatomy or errors in the manufacture of the prosthesis, they affect as subjective evaluations of patients. The use of adhesives for prolonged complete dentures increases their retention and stability and positively affects the patient's satisfaction with regard to masticatory capacity, comfort and confidence, provided the recovery is adequate.

show abstract

“…Many patients with dentures use denture adhesives daily because they provide retention and stability, improving both function and comfort 1‐3 . Moreover, the product is easily available at any pharmacy, with no need for a prescription and at an affordable price 4 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many patients with dentures use denture adhesives daily because they provide retention and stability, improving both function and comfort. [1][2][3] Moreover, the product is easily available at any pharmacy, with no need for a prescription and at an affordable price. 4 However, the effects that this type of product can have on oral mucosa cells have not been extensively tested, despite the fact that the substance is in contact with the oral mucosa many hours a day, or could even be ingested by the user.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Denture Adhesives Safe for Oral Cells?

López‐García

Pecci-Lloret

García‐Bernal

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the cytotoxicity of six commercially available denture adhesives on human gingival cells: Poligrip Flavour Free Fixative Cream, Fixodent Pro Duo Protection, Novafix cream, FittyDent, Polident Total Action, and Fixodent Pro Plus Duo Protection. Material and Methods Eluates of denture adhesives were brought into contact with human gingival cells and compared to untreated cells (w/o any dental adhesive elute). Cell toxicity was assessed by measuring cell viability (3‐(4,5‐dimethylthiazol‐2‐yl)‐2,5‐diphenyltetrazolium bromide) (MTT) assays), cell morphology (immunofluorescence assays), induction of apoptosis/necrosis and production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (flow cytometry assays). In addition, the pH of each sample was determined. Data were analyzed using one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test. Results All denture adhesives tested led to a reduction in pH, especially Fixodent Pro Duo Protection and Fixodent Pro Plus Duo Protection. The cell viability assays showed that Fixodent Pro Duo Protection (1:1 72 hours, p = 3.04 × 10−6; 1:2 72 hours, p = 2.07 × 10−6; 1:4 72 hours, p = 2.04 × 10−6) and Fixodent Pro Plus Duo Protection (1:1 72 hours, p = 2.01 × 10−6; 1:2 72 hours, p = 3.03 × 10−6; 1:4 72 hours, p = 2.02 × 10−6) significantly decreased cell viability at all dilutions. Compared to the control group and the rest of the adhesives, Poligrip Flavour Free Fixative Cream (PFF 1:1 72 hours, p = 2.24 × 10−6; 1:2 72 hours, p = 2.44 × 10−6; 1:4 72 hours, p = 2.04 × 10−6) showed a significantly higher cell viability score at all dilutions. Fixodent Pro Duo Protection and Fixodent Pro Plus Duo Protection, both adhesives containing zinc salts in their composition, were responsible for necrosis, and the number of cells was much reduced, with aberrant morphology and pyknotic nucleus. Finally, Fixodent (1:2, p = 2.04 × 10−6, 1:4, p = 0.00036; 1:2, p = 8.82 × 10−6, 1:4, p = 2.30 × 10−6) products significantly promoted ROS production in gingival cells. Conclusions The results suggest that denture adhesives containing zinc in their composition could be responsible of the decrease of cell viability, ROS production, aberrant cell morphology, and induction of apoptosis and cell death. However, other possible additional cytotoxic factors must be considered. Thus, more studies are necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

show abstract

Satisfaction in complete denture wearers with and without adhesives: A randomized, crossover, double-blind clinical trial

Cited by 15 publications

References 36 publications

Subjective Evaluation of Denture Adhesives: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Subjective Evaluation of Denture Adhesives: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Satisfaction of users of full dentures with adhesive: A systematic review of the literature

Are Denture Adhesives Safe for Oral Cells?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About