Effects of methantheline bromide and clonidine hydrochloride on salivary secretion

Abstract

T he maintenance of an operative field free of moisture contamination is important in many dental procedures. Impression materials such as the silicones and polysulfides possess hydrophobic properties. Cements, amalgam, and composite resins exhibit weakened or altered physical properties when contaminated with moisture. Finally, equilibration procedures that require the use of inked ribbon are virtually impossible to perform without adequate saliva control. Many devices have been used to control saliva during dental treatment: cotton rolls, absorbent papers and other moisture absorbing materials, saliva ejectors, and high volume evacuators. Various drugs have also been successfully used but are often prohibited by potential side effects. Methantheline bromide was originally intended for use in the treatment of peptic ulcers.‘,’ It has long been considered an effective antisialagogue;3,4 however, potential side effects in both the healthy and compromised patient have prevented its widespread and routine use.2,3 An antihypertensive, clonidine hydrochloride, has shown merit recently in reducing saliva output with minimal side effects and fewer contraindications than methantheline bromide.5-9 The purposes of this study were 1) to compare in a double-blind fashion the inhibition of stimulated salivary output produced with clonidine hydrochloride, methantheline bromide, and a placebo in healthy volunteers and 2) to discern the effects of a standard meal on the action of clonidine hydrochloride.