A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no-adhesive control

Roshan Varghese, Gary R. Burnett, Audrey Souverain, Avinash Patil, Ana G. Gossweiler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Unlike other oral care products, there are limited technologies in the denture adhesive category with the majority based on polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PVM/MA) polymer. Carbomer-based denture adhesives are less well studied, and there are few clinical studies directly comparing performance of denture adhesives based on different technologies. This single-centre, randomised, three-treatment, three-period, examiner-blind, crossover study compared a carbomer-based denture adhesive (Test adhesive) with a PVM/MA-based adhesive (Reference adhesive) and no adhesive using incisal bite force measurements (area over baseline over 12 hr; AOB 0–12 ) in participants with a well-made and at least moderately well-fitting complete maxillary denture. Eligible participants were randomised to a treatment sequence and bit on a force transducer with increasing force until their maxillary denture dislodged. This procedure was performed prior to treatment application (baseline) and at 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hr following application. Forty-four participants were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. AOB 0–12 favoured both Test adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.12 lbs; 95% CI [1.25, 3.00]; p < 0.0001) and Reference adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.76 lbs; 95% CI [1.89, 3.63]; p < 0.0001). There was a numerical difference in AOB 0–12 for Test versus Reference adhesive (−0.63 lbs; [−1.51, 0.25]); however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.1555). Treatments were generally well tolerated. Both PVM/MA and carbomer-based denture adhesives demonstrated statistically significantly superior denture retention compared with no adhesive over 12 hr, with no statistically significant difference between adhesives.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalClinical and Experimental Dental Research
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Bite Force
Dentures
Adhesives
Pyran Copolymer
Denture Retention
Technology
Complete Denture

Keywords

  • adhesives
  • bite force
  • dentures
  • edentulous
  • incisor
  • randomised controlled trial

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no-adhesive control. / Varghese, Roshan; Burnett, Gary R.; Souverain, Audrey; Patil, Avinash; Gossweiler, Ana G.

In: Clinical and Experimental Dental Research, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e70c1f852e2843b69c46254f768d56ef,
title = "A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no-adhesive control",
abstract = "Unlike other oral care products, there are limited technologies in the denture adhesive category with the majority based on polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PVM/MA) polymer. Carbomer-based denture adhesives are less well studied, and there are few clinical studies directly comparing performance of denture adhesives based on different technologies. This single-centre, randomised, three-treatment, three-period, examiner-blind, crossover study compared a carbomer-based denture adhesive (Test adhesive) with a PVM/MA-based adhesive (Reference adhesive) and no adhesive using incisal bite force measurements (area over baseline over 12 hr; AOB 0–12 ) in participants with a well-made and at least moderately well-fitting complete maxillary denture. Eligible participants were randomised to a treatment sequence and bit on a force transducer with increasing force until their maxillary denture dislodged. This procedure was performed prior to treatment application (baseline) and at 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hr following application. Forty-four participants were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. AOB 0–12 favoured both Test adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.12 lbs; 95{\%} CI [1.25, 3.00]; p < 0.0001) and Reference adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.76 lbs; 95{\%} CI [1.89, 3.63]; p < 0.0001). There was a numerical difference in AOB 0–12 for Test versus Reference adhesive (−0.63 lbs; [−1.51, 0.25]); however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.1555). Treatments were generally well tolerated. Both PVM/MA and carbomer-based denture adhesives demonstrated statistically significantly superior denture retention compared with no adhesive over 12 hr, with no statistically significant difference between adhesives.",
keywords = "adhesives, bite force, dentures, edentulous, incisor, randomised controlled trial",
author = "Roshan Varghese and Burnett, {Gary R.} and Audrey Souverain and Avinash Patil and Gossweiler, {Ana G.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/cre2.182",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Clinical and Experimental Dental Research",
issn = "2057-4347",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no-adhesive control

AU - Varghese, Roshan

AU - Burnett, Gary R.

AU - Souverain, Audrey

AU - Patil, Avinash

AU - Gossweiler, Ana G.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Unlike other oral care products, there are limited technologies in the denture adhesive category with the majority based on polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PVM/MA) polymer. Carbomer-based denture adhesives are less well studied, and there are few clinical studies directly comparing performance of denture adhesives based on different technologies. This single-centre, randomised, three-treatment, three-period, examiner-blind, crossover study compared a carbomer-based denture adhesive (Test adhesive) with a PVM/MA-based adhesive (Reference adhesive) and no adhesive using incisal bite force measurements (area over baseline over 12 hr; AOB 0–12 ) in participants with a well-made and at least moderately well-fitting complete maxillary denture. Eligible participants were randomised to a treatment sequence and bit on a force transducer with increasing force until their maxillary denture dislodged. This procedure was performed prior to treatment application (baseline) and at 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hr following application. Forty-four participants were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. AOB 0–12 favoured both Test adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.12 lbs; 95% CI [1.25, 3.00]; p < 0.0001) and Reference adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.76 lbs; 95% CI [1.89, 3.63]; p < 0.0001). There was a numerical difference in AOB 0–12 for Test versus Reference adhesive (−0.63 lbs; [−1.51, 0.25]); however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.1555). Treatments were generally well tolerated. Both PVM/MA and carbomer-based denture adhesives demonstrated statistically significantly superior denture retention compared with no adhesive over 12 hr, with no statistically significant difference between adhesives.

AB - Unlike other oral care products, there are limited technologies in the denture adhesive category with the majority based on polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PVM/MA) polymer. Carbomer-based denture adhesives are less well studied, and there are few clinical studies directly comparing performance of denture adhesives based on different technologies. This single-centre, randomised, three-treatment, three-period, examiner-blind, crossover study compared a carbomer-based denture adhesive (Test adhesive) with a PVM/MA-based adhesive (Reference adhesive) and no adhesive using incisal bite force measurements (area over baseline over 12 hr; AOB 0–12 ) in participants with a well-made and at least moderately well-fitting complete maxillary denture. Eligible participants were randomised to a treatment sequence and bit on a force transducer with increasing force until their maxillary denture dislodged. This procedure was performed prior to treatment application (baseline) and at 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hr following application. Forty-four participants were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. AOB 0–12 favoured both Test adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.12 lbs; 95% CI [1.25, 3.00]; p < 0.0001) and Reference adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.76 lbs; 95% CI [1.89, 3.63]; p < 0.0001). There was a numerical difference in AOB 0–12 for Test versus Reference adhesive (−0.63 lbs; [−1.51, 0.25]); however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.1555). Treatments were generally well tolerated. Both PVM/MA and carbomer-based denture adhesives demonstrated statistically significantly superior denture retention compared with no adhesive over 12 hr, with no statistically significant difference between adhesives.

KW - adhesives

KW - bite force

KW - dentures

KW - edentulous

KW - incisor

KW - randomised controlled trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065842624&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065842624&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/cre2.182

DO - 10.1002/cre2.182

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85065842624

JO - Clinical and Experimental Dental Research

JF - Clinical and Experimental Dental Research

SN - 2057-4347

ER -