R C Lapiedra1, G E Gómez1, B P Sánchez1, A A Pereda2, M D Turner3. 1. Department of Oral Medicine & Orofacial Surgery, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 2. Private Practice, Madrid, Spain. 3. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, NY Center for Salivary Gland Diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center NY, New York, NY USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the difference between the combination agent of xylitol, beatine and olive oil in a chewable capsule versus the control agent of a sorbitol tablet in subjects with hyposalivation and xerostomia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The subjects had xerostomia over 3 months and a measured hyposalivation. The study was 3 weeks in duration, with 2 treatment phases of 1 week and a 7 day wash out period in between. At the end of each treatment phase, subjects returned for a follow up evaluation. At this visit they were given the subjective sensation questionnaire, as well as their unstimulated whole salivary flow and stimulated whole salivary flow were measured. RESULTS: There was a greater increase in the unstimulated and stimulated whole salivary flow rate, although the results were not statistically significant. The subjective evaluation as measured by the questionnaire showed that both agents reduced the mean score as compared to the baseline, although only the findings in the active agent was statistically significant (p = 0.0015). CONCLUSION: The significant conclusions found in this study were that the active agent provided a significant subjective improvement in speech, swallowing, and decreased subjective xerostomia as compared to the control tablet. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This combination agent has a significant effect on patients with subjective xerostomia but does not have a significant effect on objective hyposalivation.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the difference between the combination agent of xylitol, beatine and olive oil in a chewable capsule versus the control agent of a sorbitol tablet in subjects with hyposalivation and xerostomia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The subjects had xerostomia over 3 months and a measured hyposalivation. The study was 3 weeks in duration, with 2 treatment phases of 1 week and a 7 day wash out period in between. At the end of each treatment phase, subjects returned for a follow up evaluation. At this visit they were given the subjective sensation questionnaire, as well as their unstimulated whole salivary flow and stimulated whole salivary flow were measured. RESULTS: There was a greater increase in the unstimulated and stimulated whole salivary flow rate, although the results were not statistically significant. The subjective evaluation as measured by the questionnaire showed that both agents reduced the mean score as compared to the baseline, although only the findings in the active agent was statistically significant (p = 0.0015). CONCLUSION: The significant conclusions found in this study were that the active agent provided a significant subjective improvement in speech, swallowing, and decreased subjective xerostomia as compared to the control tablet. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This combination agent has a significant effect on patients with subjective xerostomia but does not have a significant effect on objective hyposalivation.
Authors: I Sánchez-Blanco; M Rodríguez-Téllez; J-R Corcuera-Flores; C González-Blanco; D Torres-Lagares; M-Á Serrera-Figallo; G Machuca-Portillo Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2020-11-01