Browsing by Subject "bite force"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A randomized controlled trial assessing denture adhesive efficacy on denture retention across 13 hours
    (Wiley, 2024-04) Klukowska, Malgorzata; Grender, Julie; Gossweiler, Ana; Biomedical and Applied Sciences, School of Dentistry
    Purpose To compare the effects of two denture adhesive formulations on the bite force required to dislodge a maxillary denture in adult participants during a 13-h test period. Materials and Methods Twenty-two participants with a fair-to-poor fitting maxillary denture opposed by natural dentition or a stable mandibular denture were enrolled in this single-center, randomized, double-blind, two-treatment, 4-period crossover study. Participants were randomly assigned a product usage sequence so that each participant used each product twice during the 4-day test period. The test product was a denture cream adhesive formulated with an optimized calcium/zinc partial salt of polyvinyl methyl ether/maleic acid (Fixodent Ultra technology); the control product was a cream adhesive formulated with a calcium/zinc partial salt of polyvinyl methyl ether/maleic acid (Fixodent Original technology). On each study day, bite force at dislodgement was measured with a gnathodynamometer at baseline, representing the “no adhesive” score. Then, after standardized product application to the participant's existing maxillary denture by site staff, bite force measurements were retaken at 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 h. The change from baseline and the 13-h area under the bite-force–change-from-baseline curve were analyzed via an analysis of variance. Results Twenty-one participants completed all test periods; one additional participant completed three test periods so 22 participants were included in the analysis. There were 15 females and 7 males with a mean age of 70 years. The mean 13-h area under the bite-force–change-from-baseline curve was 8% greater (p = 0.010) for the test adhesive (114.3 lb) than for the control adhesive (105.9 lb). Both adhesives showed a statistically significant increase in bite force (p < 0.001) at each time point compared to no adhesive. Conclusions The optimized calcium/zinc partial salt of polyvinyl methyl ether/maleic acid test adhesive provided superior maxillary denture retention relative to that of the control adhesive across 13 h. Both adhesives increased bite force at dislodgement compared to no adhesive.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control
    (Wiley, 2019-06) Varghese, Roshan; Burnett, Gary R.; Souverain, Audrey; Patil, Avinash; Gossweiler, Ana G.; Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry
    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.