AIM: Although oral care is important in the prevention of aspiration pneumonia, the different institutions and practitioners employ various oral care methods, some of which are associated with the risk of aspiration. We have developed a new gel with the physical properties needed for waterless oral care. In the present study, we evaluated and investigated the properties and effectiveness of this gel. METHODS: The physical properties of the trial gel and commercial moisturizing gels were compared using a VAS scale. The effects of plaque elimination were evaluated in healthy volunteers. Brushing was carried out by a dental hygienist using the gel and water. The number of throat suctions performed during brushing was also counted, and the difference was evaluated. RESULTS: In the evaluation of physical characteristics, trial Gel B showed a significantly higher rating than the other gels. In plaque elimination, the rate of decrease in a modified PCR was significantly greater with the gel trial. Suctioning was also performed significantly fewer times with the trial gel. CONCLUSIONS: Good results were obtained with the newly developed trial Gel B with regard to the physical properties and the sensory evaluations. Its effectiveness was also confirmed in plaque elimination and in the evaluated risk of aspiration. The use of Gel B may have the potential to decrease the risk of aspiration during oral care and reduce the occurrence of aspiration pneumonia.
AIM: Although oral care is important in the prevention of aspiration pneumonia, the different institutions and practitioners employ various oral care methods, some of which are associated with the risk of aspiration. We have developed a new gel with the physical properties needed for waterless oral care. In the present study, we evaluated and investigated the properties and effectiveness of this gel. METHODS: The physical properties of the trial gel and commercial moisturizing gels were compared using a VAS scale. The effects of plaque elimination were evaluated in healthy volunteers. Brushing was carried out by a dental hygienist using the gel and water. The number of throat suctions performed during brushing was also counted, and the difference was evaluated. RESULTS: In the evaluation of physical characteristics, trial Gel B showed a significantly higher rating than the other gels. In plaque elimination, the rate of decrease in a modified PCR was significantly greater with the gel trial. Suctioning was also performed significantly fewer times with the trial gel. CONCLUSIONS: Good results were obtained with the newly developed trial Gel B with regard to the physical properties and the sensory evaluations. Its effectiveness was also confirmed in plaque elimination and in the evaluated risk of aspiration. The use of Gel B may have the potential to decrease the risk of aspiration during oral care and reduce the occurrence of aspiration pneumonia.