A clinical comparison between commercially available mucin- and CMC-containing saliva substitutes

Vissink, Arjan; Sgravenmade, Ej; Panders, Ak; Vermey, A; Petersen, Jens; Visch, L.L.; Schaub, Rmh

doi:10.1016/s0300-9785(83)80048-9

Cited by 87 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Healthy subjects who do not use drugs and who have not been exposed to radiation therapy have 1,800-3,000 mg saliva in their oral cavi ties [Vissink et al, 1983].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In vivo Study on the Prevention of Postradiation Caries

Jansma¹,

Vissink

Sgravenmade

et al. 1989

Caries Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Postradiation caries is usually prevented by the application of topical fluorides (F) at high concentrations. The aim of this study was to develop an optimal preventive program for postradiation caries by evaluating the effects of F concentration and application procedures in subjects with radiation-related xerostomia. Six ground enamel slabs were mounted on each side of the lower denture of each of 7 xerostomia patients. Four procedures were used: no F exposure (control), neutral F gel applied every 2nd day or weekly, and a daily rinse with a F mouthwash for a period of 6 weeks. The enamel slabs were analyzed at weekly intervals by scanning optical monitoring, longitudinal microradiography, and scanning electron microscopy. In addition, hardness measurements were performed on the slabs. F analyses of the enamel slabs were done prior to their insertion in the appliances and after 6 weeks of intraoral exposure. In the control experiments severe demineralization of enamel occurred within 6 weeks. Application of F gel or the use of the F mouthrinse resulted in a significant inhibition of the demineralization process. Of the procedures evaluated, F gel applied every 2nd day was the most effective in preventing the onset of postradiation caries.

show abstract

“…Healthy subjects who do not use drugs and who have not been exposed to radiation therapy have 1,800-3,000 mg saliva in their oral cavi ties [Vissink et al, 1983].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The severity of xerostomia was measured by wiping the oral cavity after swallowing with a water-absorbant gauze which was weighed before and after saliva collection. The tests were performed on 3 different days between 10.00 and 10.30 h, and the subjects were not allowed to take food or beverages for 2 h before the test [Vissink et al, 1983).…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo Study on the Prevention of Postradiation Caries

Jansma¹,

Vissink

Sgravenmade

et al. 1989

Caries Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Questions were answered according to a 10-point scale, the qualitative extremes of which are shown in Table 2. The questions used in the questionnaire were derived from studies by Vissink et a1 (17,24), Visch et al(23), and Aagaard et al (26). The severity of symptoms was scored before and after the use of each saliva substitute.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of xerostomia with polymer‐based saliva substitutes in patients with Sjögren's syndrome

Vanderreijden

vanderKwaak

Vissink

et al. 1996

Arthritis & Rheumatism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To determine the efficacy of 3 types of polymer-based saliva substitutes in reducing oral dryness in patients with Sjogren's syndrome (SS).Methods. Subjective efficacy of 3 different saliva substitutes (determined by self-administered questionnaire) was evaluated in a double-blind, placebocontrolled trial in 43 patients with primary and secondary SS. High-viscosity versus low-viscosity xanthan gum-based saliva substitutes were also compared in 33 SS patients. Salivary flow rates (SFR) were determined to examine correlations between the SFR and the subjective efficacy of the saliva substitute.Results. Neither the saliva substitutes nor the placebo was truly effective. Preference for a particular saliva substitute over placebo was equally distributed among the 3 types of substitutes. The SFR of patients who preferred polyacrylic acid-based saliva substitutes was lower than that in patients who preferred the porcine mucin-based substitute (P < 0.05). Patients whose oral dryness was reduced by low-viscoelastic substitutes had a low stimulated SFR (<0.20 mljminute; P < 0.05). Conclusion.The optimal properties of a saliva substitute are not the same for all patients with SS, but are dependent on such parameters as the individual SFR. Thus, to determine the best saliva substitute for a

show abstract

“…Для оценки клинической эффек-тивности слюнозаменителей анализируют следующие параметры: смазывающая способность, противомикроб-ная активность in vitrо, вязкость, де-и реминерализация эмали и дентина [44]. Данные средства должны обладать хорошими очищающими свойствами, содержать биологи-чески активные компоненты, имитирующие действие натуральной слюны, обеспечивать ощущение влаги и не оказывать раздражающего действия на слизистую обо-лочку полости рта [45].…”

unclassified