Research abstract
British Dental Journal 193, 403 - 408 (2002)
Published online: 12 October 2002 | doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4801576
Patient preferences in a preliminary study comparing an intra-oral lubricating device with the usual dry mouth lubricating methods
P M Frost1, P J Shirlaw2, J D Walter3 & S J Challacombe4
- An alternative method of dry mouth lubrication.
- A novel intra-oral lubricating device.
- Water, saliva substitute and sugar free chewing gum compared with the device.
- The majority of the subjects preferred the device especially at night time.
Abstract
Objective: To compare an intra-oral device to relieve oral dryness with the other methods of lubricating the mouth at night.
Design: Multidisciplinary single blind randomised cross over study.
Setting: The subjects were drawn from patients attending a dry mouth clinic.
Materials and methods: Thirty-four dentate subjects attended on five occasions at intervals of 4 weeks. At the first visit the teeth were scaled and impressions were recorded. The device was fitted either on the second or the fourth visit. At all visits samples were taken of the resting and stimulated saliva for volumetric analysis and the dry mouth score recorded. Data were collected from the lubrication timings and the questionnaire.
Results: Ten water, nine saliva substitute and ten sugar-free chewing gum lubricators completed the study. There were 27 female and two male subjects with an average age of 62 years. Nine out of 10 of those lubricating with chewing gum preferred wearing the device (P = 0.037). After the device wearing period the subjects' self assessment of mouth dryness (P = 0.056), speech (P = 0.009) and swallowing (P = 0.031) were more favourable when compared with the alternative lubrication with 66% preferring the intra-oral device to their alternative method of lubrication.
Conclusions: The majority of the subjects preferred wearing the device at night compared with their normal method of lubrication. Subjects' perception of dryness, speech and swallowing became closer to the clinician's assessment after wearing the device.
- Part time Senior Demonstrator, Guy's Campus, GKT Dental Institute, King's College, London SE1 9RT
- Associate Specialist, Department of Oral Medicine and Pathology, Guy's Campus, GKT Dental Institute, King's College, London SE1 9RT
- Reader and Consultant, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Guy's Campus, GKT Dental Institute, King's College, London SE1 9RT
- Professor of Oral Medicine and Pathology, Guy's Campus, GKT Dental Institute, King's College, London SE1 9RT
Correspondence to: P M Frost1
Division of Prosthetic Dentistry, Guy's Campus, GKT Dental Institute, King's College, London SE1 9RT
e-mail: pfdrymouth@aol.com