Abstract
This was a crossover study comparing a mucin-based artificial saliva (Saliva Orthana) and pilocarpine hydrochloride (Salagen) in the management of xerostomia in patients with advanced cancer. The pilocarpine was found to be more effective than the artificial saliva in terms of mean change in visual analogue scale scores for xerostomia (P = 0.003). Furthermore, more patients reported that it had helped their xerostomia, and more patients wanted to continue with it after the study. However, the pilocarpine was found to be associated with more side-effects than the artificial saliva (P < 0.001). These side-effects were usually reported as being mild. Of the patients who used both treatments, 50% preferred the artificial saliva, and 50% preferred the pilocarpine. The commonest reason for preferring the artificial saliva was the fact that it was a spray, rather than a tablet.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
