首页> 外文期刊>Clinical and Experimental Dental Research >A proof‐of‐principle bite force study using two experimental test denture adhesives and a currently marketed denture adhesive
【24h】

A proof‐of‐principle bite force study using two experimental test denture adhesives and a currently marketed denture adhesive

机译:使用两种实验测试假牙粘合剂和目前销售义齿粘合剂的原则上的原则咬合力研究

获取原文
       

摘要

Objectives This proof‐of‐principle, single‐center, randomized, examiner‐blind, crossover study compared two experimental polyvinyl acetate (PVA)‐based denture adhesives (Test Adhesives 1 and 2) with a marketed reference polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PMV/MA)‐based adhesive and no adhesive using incisal bite force area over baseline over 12?hr (AOB0–12) in participants with an at least moderately well‐fitting complete maxillary denture. Previous in vitro studies suggested the experimental denture adhesives provided superior performance. Materials and Methods Participants were randomized to a treatment sequence such that each received each treatment once. Prior to treatment application (baseline) and at 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12?hr following the application, participants bit on a force transducer until their maxillary denture dislodged. Between‐treatment differences in AOB0–12 were analyzed using analysis of covariance. For study validity, the reference adhesive was compared with no adhesive. Participants were asked to rate sensory experiences and ease of denture removal. Results Twenty‐three participants were included in the modified intent‐to‐treat population. Although Test Adhesives 1 and 2 had a higher mean AOB0–12 than no adhesive, differences were not statistically significant. No statistically significant difference was also found between the reference adhesive and no adhesive; hence, study validity was not attained. Participants did not report any clear differences between the test or reference adhesives in terms of taste or feel; however, dentures were easier to remove with the test adhesives versus reference. No treatment‐related adverse events were reported. Conclusion Neither the experimental PVA‐based denture adhesives nor the PMV/MA‐based reference product demonstrated a statistically significant difference in incisal bite force AOB0‐12 compared with no adhesive. The reasons for these unexpected results is unclear; they suggest that findings of in vitro tests for denture adhesive performance are not always translated to in vivo performance (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02937870).
机译:目的这种原则上的原则,单中心,随机,检查障碍,交叉研究比较了两种实验聚乙烯酯(PVA)的牙戊酯(PVA),基于义肢粘合剂(试验粘合剂1和2),其具有销售的参考聚甲基乙烯基醚/马来酸酐( PMV / MA)基于粘合剂,在参与者中,使用切口咬伤的粘合剂和粘合剂在基线上使用基线超过12?HR(AOB0-12),其具有至少适度良好的完整上颌义齿。以前的体外研究表明实验性义齿粘合剂提供了优异的性能。材料和方法参与者被随机化为治疗序列,使得每次接受一次治疗。在治疗施用之前(基线)和0.5,1,3,6,9和12?HR之后的应用,参与者在力传感器上吻,直到其上颌义齿移位。使用协方差分析分析AOB0-12的治疗差异。对于学习有效性,将参考粘合剂与粘合剂进行比较。参与者被要求评估感官经验和易于删除义齿。结果二十三位参与者被列入修改的意图对治疗人口中。虽然试验粘合剂1和2具有比没有粘合剂更高的平均值,但差异没有统计学意义。参考粘合剂和粘合剂之间也没有发现统计学上的差异;因此,没有获得研究有效性。参与者在味道或感觉方面没有报告测试或参考粘合剂之间的任何明显差异;然而,用测试粘合剂与参考,假牙更容易去除。没有报告治疗相关的不良事件。结论既不是实验PVA的义齿粘合剂也不是PMV / MA的参考产物在没有粘合剂的情况下表现出切口咬伤力AOB0-12的统计学上显着差异。这些意外结果的原因尚不清楚;他们建议对义齿粘合性能的体外测试的结果并不总是转化为体内性能(ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02937870)。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号