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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Varghese, Roshan, Burnett, Gary R., Souverain, Audrey, Patil, Avinash, Gossweiler, Ana G.
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