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; AOB0–12) 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. AOB0–12 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 AOB0–12 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.
Highlights
Denture retention in edentulous individuals can be compromised by a number of factors including loss of bone along the residual ridge, neuromuscular changes, and age‐ or medication‐related alterations in saliva quality/quantity (Felton et al, 2011)
Questionnaire responses demonstrated no clear notable differences between the Reference and Test adhesives in terms of flavour/texture of the adhesive (Figures 4 and S1) or denture fit/comfort (Figures 5 and S1), the Reference adhesive did rank slightly higher in most categories
Use of denture adhesives is relatively low (Papadiochou et al, 2015). This current study investigated denture retention over a 12‐hr period following use of marketed denture adhesives with formulations based on different polymers, as compared with No adhesive
Summary
Denture retention in edentulous individuals can be compromised by a number of factors including loss of bone along the residual ridge, neuromuscular changes, and age‐ or medication‐related alterations in saliva quality/quantity (Felton et al, 2011). One well‐investigated and marketed denture adhesive technology is based on a combination of polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PVM/MA) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC). In this adhesive, the hydrophilic CMC is involved in initial adhesive hydration and is believed responsible for initial adhesive strength when fitted to a denture. The hydrophilic CMC is involved in initial adhesive hydration and is believed responsible for initial adhesive strength when fitted to a denture As this hydration proceeds, the PVM/MA hydrates, and a stronger hold develops (Han et al, 2014)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 call
