OBJECTIVES: To compare salivary pH changes and stimulation efficacy of two different gustatory stimulants of salivary secretion (GSSS). SETTING:Portuguese Dental Faculty Clinic. DESIGN: Double blind randomized controlled trial. SUBJECTS:One hundred and twenty volunteers were randomized to two intervention groups. Sample sized was calculated using an alpha error of 0.05 and a beta of 0.20. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a new gustatory stimulant of secretory secretion containing a weaker malic acid, fluoride and xylitol or a traditionally citric acid-based one. Saliva collection was obtained by established methods at different times. The salivary pH of the samples was determined with a pH meter and a microelectrode. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Salivary pH variations and counts of subjects with pH below 5.5 for over 1 min and stimulated salivary flow were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: Both GSSS significantly stimulated salivary output without significant differences between the two groups. The new gustatory stimulant of salivary secretion presented a risk reduction of 80 +/- 10.6% (95% CI) when compared with the traditional one. CONCLUSIONS:Gustatory stimulants of salivary secretion with fluoride, xylitol and lower acid content maintain similar salivary stimulation capacity while reducing significantly the dental erosion predictive potential.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare salivary pH changes and stimulation efficacy of two different gustatory stimulants of salivary secretion (GSSS). SETTING: Portuguese Dental Faculty Clinic. DESIGN: Double blind randomized controlled trial. SUBJECTS: One hundred and twenty volunteers were randomized to two intervention groups. Sample sized was calculated using an alpha error of 0.05 and a beta of 0.20. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Participants were randomly assigned to receive a new gustatory stimulant of secretory secretion containing a weaker malic acid, fluoride and xylitol or a traditionally citric acid-based one. Saliva collection was obtained by established methods at different times. The salivary pH of the samples was determined with a pH meter and a microelectrode. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Salivary pH variations and counts of subjects with pH below 5.5 for over 1 min and stimulated salivary flow were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: Both GSSS significantly stimulated salivary output without significant differences between the two groups. The new gustatory stimulant of salivary secretion presented a risk reduction of 80 +/- 10.6% (95% CI) when compared with the traditional one. CONCLUSIONS: Gustatory stimulants of salivary secretion with fluoride, xylitol and lower acid content maintain similar salivary stimulation capacity while reducing significantly the dental erosion predictive potential.