Dataset Information

A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no-adhesive control.

ABSTRACT: 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; AOB0-12) 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. AOB0-12 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 AOB0-12 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.

SUBMITTER: Varghese R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6585581 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no-adhesive control.

Varghese Roshan R Burnett Gary R GR Souverain Audrey A Patil Avinash A Gossweiler Ana G AG

Clinical and experimental dental research 20190514 3

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 (Tes ...[more]

PMID: 31249709

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This proof-of-principle, single-center, randomized, examiner-blind, crossover study compared two experimental polyvinyl acetate (PVA)-based denture adhesives (Test Adhesives 1 and 2) with a marketed reference polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PMV/MA)-based adhesive and no adhesive using incisal bite force area over baseline over 12 hr (AOB0-12 ) in participants with an at least moderately well-fitting complete maxillary denture. Previous in vitro studies suggested the experimental denture adhesives provided superior performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Participants were randomized to a treatment sequence such that each received each treatment once. Prior to treatment application (baseline) and at 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hr following the application, participants bit on a force transducer until their maxillary denture dislodged. Between-treatment differences in AOB0-12 were analyzed using analysis of covariance. For study validity, the reference adhesive was compared with no adhesive. Participants were asked to rate sensory experiences and ease of denture removal. RESULTS:Twenty-three participants were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. Although Test Adhesives 1 and 2 had a higher mean AOB0-12 than no adhesive, differences were not statistically significant. No statistically significant difference was also found between the reference adhesive and no adhesive; hence, study validity was not attained. Participants did not report any clear differences between the test or reference adhesives in terms of taste or feel; however, dentures were easier to remove with the test adhesives versus reference. No treatment-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION:Neither the experimental PVA-based denture adhesives nor the PMV/MA-based reference product demonstrated a statistically significant difference in incisal bite force AOB0-12 compared with no adhesive. The reasons for these unexpected results is unclear; they suggest that findings of in vitro tests for denture adhesive performance are not always translated to in vivo performance (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02937870).

Project description:ObjectivesAn optimized food infiltration methodology was utilized to assess the objective and subjective efficacy of a marketed denture adhesive regarding denture dislodgment and infiltration and perception of food particles under maxillary and mandibular dentures. A pilot study helped optimize methodologies before the efficacy study.Materials and methodsParticipants were healthy adults (n =48 for both studies) with fair- to well-fitting and well-made full maxillary and mandibular dentures. In the pilot, groups were a denture adhesive applied in a conventional dabbed-on pattern, a denture adhesive applied in continuous strips, or no adhesive. In the efficacy study, groups were the Test denture adhesive (continuous strips pattern application) or no adhesive, employed in a crossover design. Food infiltration was investigated through measurement of peanut particle mass retrieved from under each denture (30-32 g chewed). No formal statistical testing was performed in the pilot. Statistical analysis in the efficacy study was performed using analysis of variance. Primary efficacy evaluation was combined peanut particle mass from both dentures. Secondary efficacy evaluations included peanut particle mass under separate dentures, participant-reported denture dislodgements, and awareness/rates of how bothersome peanut particles under dentures were.ResultsIn the pilot, the median peanut particle mass was lower with either pattern application compared with no adhesive. In the efficacy study, peanut particle mass under combined dentures was lower with than without adhesive (geometric mean [product of values]: 5.56 vs. 29.13 mg) with a between-group geometric mean ratio (adhesive over no adhesive) of 0.19 (95% confidence interval: 0.12, 0.30) favoring the Test adhesive (p < .0001). Similar Test adhesive beneficial outcomes in both studies included significantly fewer denture dislodgements and awareness and how bothersome peanut particles under dentures were. Treatments were generally well-tolerated.ConclusionsThese findings, including reduced peanut particle infiltration, fewer denture dislodgments, and lower ratings of bothersomeness, corroborate those studies investigating the benefits of denture adhesive in preventing food infiltration.

Project description:PURPOSE:To study the effects of denture adhesive upon denture micromovements in three dimensions during the chewing of hard, sticky, and tough food items observed using a novel method involving an electromagnetic articulograph (EMA) speech research system. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Ten volunteers (mean age 60.9 ± 10.4 years) with fair- or poor-fitting complete maxillary dentures were enrolled. Chewing experiments were conducted using two treatments (adhesive or no-adhesive control) and three foods: carrots (hard), raisins (sticky), and processed meat stick (tough). Denture micromovement was measured through a novel application of a Northern Digital Wave EMA System. Three-dimensional denture position was captured during mastication using three sensors embedded into a replica denture for each subject. Following individual characterization of a "home" reference position, the Euclidean Distances from Home (DfH) were calculated for each recorded sample of the chewing experiments. The DfH at each sample represented the denture movement for that 1/100th of a second of the activity. The DfH data were then summarized as the mean DfH, the maximum DfH, and total distance traveled by the denture. Several thresholds were also analyzed, including the percent of time that the DfH ≥1.5 mm, ≥2.0 mm, and ≥2.5 mm. RESULTS:With adhesive treatment, the mean DfH of dentures during chewing was reduced by 26.8% for carrot, 30.3% for raisin, and 31.0% for meat stick, when compared with no-adhesive treatment (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Similar results were also seen for the maximum DfH and total distance travelled endpoints across foods. For the threshold endpoints, adhesive treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in denture micromovements at all three thresholds across foods. At the threshold of DfH ≥ 1.5 mm, adhesive treatment was associated with a reduction in micromovement by 61.6%, 56.2%, and 70.0% with carrot, raisin, and meat stick, respectively (p ≤ 0.004 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS:Observations of denture movement using the Wave EMA System were able to differentiate systematically between adhesive treatment and no-adhesive treatment for denture micromovements during different chewing challenges. Use of adhesive was associated with statistically significant reductions in denture micromovements for hard, sticky, and tough foods as measured with both distance and threshold endpoints.

Project description:Denture adhesives, characterized as medical products in 1935 by the American Dental Association, have been considered useful adjuncts for improving denture retention and stability. However, many dentists in Japan are hesitant to acknowledge denture adhesives in daily practice because of the stereotype that dentures should be inherently stable, without the aid of adhesives. The aim of this study is to verify the efficacy of denture adhesives to establish guidelines for Japanese users. The null hypothesis is that the application of denture adhesives, including the cream and powder types, or a control (isotonic sodium chloride solution) would not produce different outcomes nor would they differentially improve the set outcomes between baseline and day 4 post-application.This ten-center, randomized controlled trial with parallel groups is ongoing. Three hundred edentulous patients with complete dentures will be allocated to three groups (cream-type adhesive, powder-type adhesive, and control groups). The participants will wear their dentures with the denture adhesive for 4 days, including during eight meals (three breakfasts, two lunches, and three dinners). The baseline measurements and final measurements for the denture adhesives will be performed on the first day and after breakfast on the fourth day. The primary outcome is a general satisfaction rating for the denture. The secondary outcomes are denture satisfaction ratings for various denture functions, occlusal bite force, resistance to dislodgement, masticatory performance, perceived chewing ability, and oral health-related quality of life. Between-subjects comparisons among the three groups and within-subjects comparisons of the pre- and post-intervention measurements will be performed. Furthermore, a multiple regression analysis will be performed. The main analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. A sample size of 100 subjects per group, including an assumed dropout rate of 10 %, will be required to achieve 80 % power with a 5 % alpha level.This randomized clinical trial will provide information about denture adhesives to complete denture wearers, prosthodontic educators, and dentists in Japan. We believe this new evidence on denture adhesive use from Japan will aid dentists in their daily practice even in other countries.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01712802 . Registered on 17 October 2012.

Dataset Information

A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no-adhesive control.

Publications

A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no-adhesive control.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets