Cargando…
A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control
Unlike other oral care products, there are limited technologies in the denture adhesive category with the majority based on polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PVM/MA) polymer. Carbomer‐based denture adhesives are less well studied, and there are few clinical studies directly comparing performa...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6585581/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31249709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.182 |
_version_ | 1783428726859497472 |
---|---|
author | Varghese, Roshan Burnett, Gary R. Souverain, Audrey Patil, Avinash Gossweiler, Ana G. |
author_facet | Varghese, Roshan Burnett, Gary R. Souverain, Audrey Patil, Avinash Gossweiler, Ana G. |
author_sort | Varghese, Roshan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Unlike other oral care products, there are limited technologies in the denture adhesive category with the majority based on polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PVM/MA) polymer. Carbomer‐based denture adhesives are less well studied, and there are few clinical studies directly comparing performance of denture adhesives based on different technologies. This single‐centre, randomised, three‐treatment, three‐period, examiner‐blind, crossover study compared a carbomer‐based denture adhesive (Test adhesive) with a PVM/MA‐based adhesive (Reference adhesive) and no adhesive using incisal bite force measurements (area over baseline over 12 hr; AOB(0–12)) in participants with a well‐made and at least moderately well‐fitting complete maxillary denture. Eligible participants were randomised to a treatment sequence and bit on a force transducer with increasing force until their maxillary denture dislodged. This procedure was performed prior to treatment application (baseline) and at 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hr following application. Forty‐four participants were included in the modified intent‐to‐treat population. AOB(0–12) favoured both Test adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.12 lbs; 95% CI [1.25, 3.00]; p < 0.0001) and Reference adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.76 lbs; 95% CI [1.89, 3.63]; p < 0.0001). There was a numerical difference in AOB(0–12) for Test versus Reference adhesive (−0.63 lbs; [−1.51, 0.25]); however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.1555). Treatments were generally well tolerated. Both PVM/MA and carbomer‐based denture adhesives demonstrated statistically significantly superior denture retention compared with no adhesive over 12 hr, with no statistically significant difference between adhesives. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6585581 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65855812019-06-27 A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control Varghese, Roshan Burnett, Gary R. Souverain, Audrey Patil, Avinash Gossweiler, Ana G. Clin Exp Dent Res Original Articles Unlike other oral care products, there are limited technologies in the denture adhesive category with the majority based on polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PVM/MA) polymer. Carbomer‐based denture adhesives are less well studied, and there are few clinical studies directly comparing performance of denture adhesives based on different technologies. This single‐centre, randomised, three‐treatment, three‐period, examiner‐blind, crossover study compared a carbomer‐based denture adhesive (Test adhesive) with a PVM/MA‐based adhesive (Reference adhesive) and no adhesive using incisal bite force measurements (area over baseline over 12 hr; AOB(0–12)) in participants with a well‐made and at least moderately well‐fitting complete maxillary denture. Eligible participants were randomised to a treatment sequence and bit on a force transducer with increasing force until their maxillary denture dislodged. This procedure was performed prior to treatment application (baseline) and at 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hr following application. Forty‐four participants were included in the modified intent‐to‐treat population. AOB(0–12) favoured both Test adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.12 lbs; 95% CI [1.25, 3.00]; p < 0.0001) and Reference adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.76 lbs; 95% CI [1.89, 3.63]; p < 0.0001). There was a numerical difference in AOB(0–12) for Test versus Reference adhesive (−0.63 lbs; [−1.51, 0.25]); however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.1555). Treatments were generally well tolerated. Both PVM/MA and carbomer‐based denture adhesives demonstrated statistically significantly superior denture retention compared with no adhesive over 12 hr, with no statistically significant difference between adhesives. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-05-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6585581/ /pubmed/31249709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.182 Text en ©2019 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Varghese, Roshan Burnett, Gary R. Souverain, Audrey Patil, Avinash Gossweiler, Ana G. A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control |
title | A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control |
title_full | A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control |
title_fullStr | A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control |
title_full_unstemmed | A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control |
title_short | A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control |
title_sort | randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6585581/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31249709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.182 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vargheseroshan arandomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT burnettgaryr arandomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT souverainaudrey arandomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT patilavinash arandomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT gossweileranag arandomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT vargheseroshan randomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT burnettgaryr randomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT souverainaudrey randomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT patilavinash randomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT gossweileranag randomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol |