Comparison between three different saliva substitutes in patients with hyposalivation
- 680 Downloads
The aim of the present study was to compare the efficiency of oral spray based on thermal spring water (Buccotherm®) versus commercial saliva substitute (Xeros®) and marshmallow root on the quality of life in patients with hyposalivation.
Materials and methods
A total of 60 patients with unstimulated salivary flow rate <0.2 ml/min were randomized into three groups. In the first group, 30 patients were using Buccotherm®; in the second group, 15 patients were using Xeros®; and in the third group, 15 patients were using marshmallow root. Therapy lasted for 2 weeks; everyday, patients used one of the products four times a day. Quality of life was measured by the Croatian version of Oral Health Impact Profile 14 questionnaire, and visual analog scale was used to determine the intensity of dry mouth before and after therapy. Statistical analysis was performed by Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Kruskal-Wallis test. Standardized effect size was calculated for OHIP following treatment.
Buccotherm® has shown the biggest effect on quality of life in patients with hyposalivation. Intensity of dry mouth was lower after the applied therapy whatever substitute patients used.
We recommend the use of all three saliva substitutes for decreasing the intensity of dry mouth symptoms as well as improvement in the quality of life.
Although all tested agents showed beneficial effect in alleviating hyposalivation symptoms, it seems that Buccotherm® was superior to Xeros® and marshmallow root.
KeywordsHyposalivation Artificial saliva Thermal spring water Quality of life
We are thankful to Associate Professor Stjepan Spalj for the valuable suggestions regarding statistical analysis.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 2.Fedele S, Wolff A, Strietzel FP, Martín-Granizo López R, Porter S, Konttinen YT (2010) Electrostimulation for the treatment of dry mouth. Harefuah 149(99–103):123Google Scholar
- 3.Levine MJ, Aguirre A, Hatton MN, Tabak LA (1987) Artificial salivas: present and future. J Dent Res 66 Spec No:693-698Google Scholar
- 5.Furness S, Worthington HV, Bryan G, Birchenough S, McMillan R (2011) Interventions for the management of dry mouth: topical therapies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008934.pub2
- 7.Femiano F, Rullo R, di Spirito F, Lanza A, Festa VM, Cirillo N (2011) A comparison of salivary substitutes versus natural sialogouge (citric acid) in patients complaining of dry mouth as an adverse drug reaction: a clinical, randomized controlled study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 112(1):e15–e20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- 12.Gil-Montoya JA, Guardia-López I, Gonzáles-Moles MA (2008) Evaluation of the clinical efficiacy of a mouthwash and oral gel containing the antimicrobial proteins lactoperoxidase, lysozyme and lactoferrin in elderly patients with dry mouth—a pilot study. Gerodontology 25:3–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Aframian DJ, Mizrahi B, Granot I, Domb AJ (2010) Evaluation of a mucoadhesive lipid-based tablet compared with Biotène mouthwash for dry mouth relief—a pilot study. Quintessence Int 41:36–42Google Scholar