RESUMO
PURPOSE: An innovative hybrid toothbrush was designed to function either in manual sonic mode or combined mode (manual and sonic). The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of a new hybrid powered toothbrush (PTB) used in combined mode versus a comparative manual toothbrush (MTB) for plaque removal, after 14 days of twice-daily use under normal conditions. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the gingival state, to evaluate the tolerance of the hybrid PTB and to evaluate its acceptability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a monocentric, block-randomized, dual treatment, parallel group, and examiner-blinded trial with before and after evaluation. It was conducted on two groups of 55 subjects presenting a visible plaque accumulation (score ≥2 as measured by the Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (TMQHPI)). On Day 1/Day 8/Day 15, the same investigator conducted blind clinical examinations on each subject and evaluated TMQHPI and Papillary Bleeding Score (PBS). On Day 1, the subjects received either the hybrid PTB or the comparative MTB and used it twice daily under normal conditions of use. RESULTS: The hybrid PTB used in its combined mode eliminates dental plaque more efficiently than the comparative MTB, especially in difficult-to-access areas such as posterior and interproximal dental surfaces, while remaining gentle on the gingivae. The PBS was significantly lower with the hybrid toothbrush compared with the reference manual one. CONCLUSION: The new device confirmed previous findings and should improve oral hygiene following the manufacturer's instructions. Moreover, the specific design of the toothbrush means that it can be used according to the oral environment conditions and personal feeling.
RESUMO
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of three formulations of DC161 oral spray, a saliva substitute, and a comparator in relieving drug-induced xerostomia. This was an open-label, randomized, 4-period, cross-over study in adult subjects with drug-induced xerostomia and documented hyposalivation. During each of the four 1-day periods, one product (one of three DC161 formulations or the comparator) was applied at T0 and then at T4h (before a meal). Mouth dryness and related symptoms were evaluated by the subject on a 100-mm visual analog scale. The primary efficacy criterion was the area under the curve of the dry mouth evaluation (baseline to T4h) after the first application. The oral mucosa was examined by a dental specialist; tolerability and product acceptability were assessed by the subject. Twenty-four subjects were randomized and completed the study. Despite large variability in data among the products, the selected aqueous formulation - DC161-DP0292 - reduced the intensity of dryness of mouth at least as well as the comparator; DC161-DP0292 provided a fast relief and a long-lasting effect on mouth dryness. Both products improved other symptoms such as swallowing and speaking, even when applied just prior to a meal. DC161-DP0292 was well tolerated and rated by subjects as providing a slightly higher acceptability of taste/aftertaste, texture, and lubricating effect than the comparator. No clinically relevant signs were reported for any product following the oral examination. DC161-DP0292 provides fast and long-acting symptomatic relief and is a relevant new treatment for drug-induced xerostomia.