Efficacy of a newly developed mouth gel for xerostomia relief—A randomized double‐blind trial

Abstract

Objectives To determine the efficacy of a new symptom‐relieving mouth gel vs. a widely used control gel on xerostomic burden. Materials and methods This randomized, double‐blind, crossover trial investigated the efficacy of the test gel (Dr. Wolff Gel) vs. control (Biotene) in participants with xerostomia (n = 32; mean age 60 years). Oral examinations were taken at baseline, and xerostomic visual analogue scales (xVAS), after‐use questionnaires and willingness to pay were investigated before and after use. Results Neither gel reduced xerostomic burden (xVAS) after 7‐day application. There was some preference for the test gel regarding taste and healthy gum feeling. After 1‐time application, there were differences favouring the test gel for symptom‐relieving effects between test gel and water (p < 0.001), mucosal adhesion (p < 0.001) and taste persistence (p < 0.001). Overall symptomatic relief with the test gel lasted around 2 hr. Conclusions No mouth gel alleviated the overall xerostomic burden. Nevertheless, the test gel led to short‐term perceived symptomatic relief and improved patient‐centred outcomes as taste and perceived gum health. The gel will probably mainly be effective at moments that patients mostly suffer from xerostomia. Selection of a product will be based on perceived subjective differences and their value in the context of the overall xerostomic burden.

A Clinical Study on the Efficacy and Tolerability of a New Topical Gel and Toothpaste in Patients with Xerostomia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…We agree with Barbe et al [ 36 , 37 , 38 ] on the importance of the patients’ perspective that providing symptomatic relief is only one part of the whole treatment concept. The treatment of xerostomia should not only include symptom relief, but it should be incorporated into a whole diagnostic, prevention and treatment concept that also addresses the causes of dry mouth and its influence on general health conditions and on oral health and quality of life.…”

Oil pulling to relieve medication‐induced xerostomia: A randomized, single‐blind, crossover trial

“…The finding that oil pulling significantly improved the subjective burden of medication-induced xerostomia is of importance. Other studies by our group, which examined commercial over-the-counter (OTC) products such as mouth gels for symptom relief in populations with the same inclusion criteria, study design and endpoints, have shown less convincing or similar results regarding the overall xerostomic burden (Barbe et al, 2017(Barbe et al, , 2019. Since recommendations state that the treatment of subjective xerostomia should remain mainly symptomatic due to the lack of causal therapies (Villa et al, 2015;Wolff et al, 2017), oil pulling should be considered when advising patients.…”

Efficacy of gel-based artificial saliva on Candida colonization and saliva properties in xerostomic post-radiotherapy head and neck cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial

“…The strengths of this study were the parallel-group randomized controlled design and the long duration of 2 months, which provide a high level of evidence for clinical practice. To date, only a few randomized controlled trials have been conducted to investigate the effects of artificial saliva on oral health, and most studies used a crossover design and of shorter duration [24,37,49]. Moreover, the dry mouth characteristics of the participants were quite similar because we only included xerostomic patients due to definitive radiotherapy, which usually leads to severe hyposalivation.…”