A randomized proof-of-principle bite force study of two experimental denture adhesives and a commercially available adhesive

Anto Jose, Roshan Varghese, Nima Roohpour, Stephen Mason, Ritika Jain, Anna Gossweiler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the efficacy of two experimental denture adhesive gels (adhesives 1 and 2) compared to a commercially available denture adhesive cream (positive control) and no adhesive (negative control). Materials and Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, fourtreatment, examiner-blind, crossover study in participants with well-made and at least moderately well-fitting maxillary complete dentures. Incisal bite force until denture dislodgment was measured before application (baseline) and over the following 12 hours for each of the treatments. Betweentreatment differences in the area over baseline (AOB) for the bite force at each time point were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. Results: The efficacy and safety analyses were based on results from 48 participants. Compared to the negative control, adhesive 1 showed a statistically significantly higher bite force AOB over 12 hours (AOB0-12h; primary endpoint), as well as for AOB0-6h and AOB0-9h (all P < .05), but not for AOB0-1h or AOB0-3h. Adhesive 2 was not significantly different from the negative control or from adhesive 1 for any measure of AOB. The positive control was associated with a significantly higher bite force AOB than either of the experimental adhesives for all time points (P < .05). Although the positive control was well tolerated, both experimental adhesives were associated with a larger number of oral adverse events. Conclusion: Only adhesive 1 was significantly better than the negative control, and its performance did not match that of the positive control. Adhesives 1 and 2 showed the largest number of oral adverse events.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)351-358
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Prosthodontics
Volume31
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Bite Force
Dentures
Adhesives
Complete Denture
Cross-Over Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

A randomized proof-of-principle bite force study of two experimental denture adhesives and a commercially available adhesive. / Jose, Anto; Varghese, Roshan; Roohpour, Nima; Mason, Stephen; Jain, Ritika; Gossweiler, Anna.

In: International Journal of Prosthodontics, Vol. 31, No. 4, 01.01.2018, p. 351-358.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jose, Anto ; Varghese, Roshan ; Roohpour, Nima ; Mason, Stephen ; Jain, Ritika ; Gossweiler, Anna. / A randomized proof-of-principle bite force study of two experimental denture adhesives and a commercially available adhesive. In: International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2018 ; Vol. 31, No. 4. pp. 351-358.
@article{17a1e145b33e4ff48318eb6e7e6c9db6,
title = "A randomized proof-of-principle bite force study of two experimental denture adhesives and a commercially available adhesive",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess the efficacy of two experimental denture adhesive gels (adhesives 1 and 2) compared to a commercially available denture adhesive cream (positive control) and no adhesive (negative control). Materials and Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, fourtreatment, examiner-blind, crossover study in participants with well-made and at least moderately well-fitting maxillary complete dentures. Incisal bite force until denture dislodgment was measured before application (baseline) and over the following 12 hours for each of the treatments. Betweentreatment differences in the area over baseline (AOB) for the bite force at each time point were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. Results: The efficacy and safety analyses were based on results from 48 participants. Compared to the negative control, adhesive 1 showed a statistically significantly higher bite force AOB over 12 hours (AOB0-12h; primary endpoint), as well as for AOB0-6h and AOB0-9h (all P < .05), but not for AOB0-1h or AOB0-3h. Adhesive 2 was not significantly different from the negative control or from adhesive 1 for any measure of AOB. The positive control was associated with a significantly higher bite force AOB than either of the experimental adhesives for all time points (P < .05). Although the positive control was well tolerated, both experimental adhesives were associated with a larger number of oral adverse events. Conclusion: Only adhesive 1 was significantly better than the negative control, and its performance did not match that of the positive control. Adhesives 1 and 2 showed the largest number of oral adverse events.",
author = "Anto Jose and Roshan Varghese and Nima Roohpour and Stephen Mason and Ritika Jain and Anna Gossweiler",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.11607/ijp.5628",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "351--358",
journal = "International Journal of Prosthodontics",
issn = "0893-2174",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized proof-of-principle bite force study of two experimental denture adhesives and a commercially available adhesive

AU - Jose, Anto

AU - Varghese, Roshan

AU - Roohpour, Nima

AU - Mason, Stephen

AU - Jain, Ritika

AU - Gossweiler, Anna

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To assess the efficacy of two experimental denture adhesive gels (adhesives 1 and 2) compared to a commercially available denture adhesive cream (positive control) and no adhesive (negative control). Materials and Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, fourtreatment, examiner-blind, crossover study in participants with well-made and at least moderately well-fitting maxillary complete dentures. Incisal bite force until denture dislodgment was measured before application (baseline) and over the following 12 hours for each of the treatments. Betweentreatment differences in the area over baseline (AOB) for the bite force at each time point were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. Results: The efficacy and safety analyses were based on results from 48 participants. Compared to the negative control, adhesive 1 showed a statistically significantly higher bite force AOB over 12 hours (AOB0-12h; primary endpoint), as well as for AOB0-6h and AOB0-9h (all P < .05), but not for AOB0-1h or AOB0-3h. Adhesive 2 was not significantly different from the negative control or from adhesive 1 for any measure of AOB. The positive control was associated with a significantly higher bite force AOB than either of the experimental adhesives for all time points (P < .05). Although the positive control was well tolerated, both experimental adhesives were associated with a larger number of oral adverse events. Conclusion: Only adhesive 1 was significantly better than the negative control, and its performance did not match that of the positive control. Adhesives 1 and 2 showed the largest number of oral adverse events.

AB - Purpose: To assess the efficacy of two experimental denture adhesive gels (adhesives 1 and 2) compared to a commercially available denture adhesive cream (positive control) and no adhesive (negative control). Materials and Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, fourtreatment, examiner-blind, crossover study in participants with well-made and at least moderately well-fitting maxillary complete dentures. Incisal bite force until denture dislodgment was measured before application (baseline) and over the following 12 hours for each of the treatments. Betweentreatment differences in the area over baseline (AOB) for the bite force at each time point were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. Results: The efficacy and safety analyses were based on results from 48 participants. Compared to the negative control, adhesive 1 showed a statistically significantly higher bite force AOB over 12 hours (AOB0-12h; primary endpoint), as well as for AOB0-6h and AOB0-9h (all P < .05), but not for AOB0-1h or AOB0-3h. Adhesive 2 was not significantly different from the negative control or from adhesive 1 for any measure of AOB. The positive control was associated with a significantly higher bite force AOB than either of the experimental adhesives for all time points (P < .05). Although the positive control was well tolerated, both experimental adhesives were associated with a larger number of oral adverse events. Conclusion: Only adhesive 1 was significantly better than the negative control, and its performance did not match that of the positive control. Adhesives 1 and 2 showed the largest number of oral adverse events.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049516630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049516630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.11607/ijp.5628

DO - 10.11607/ijp.5628

M3 - Article

C2 - 29953567

AN - SCOPUS:85049516630

VL - 31

SP - 351

EP - 358

JO - International Journal of Prosthodontics

JF - International Journal of Prosthodontics

SN - 0893-2174

IS - 4

ER -