RESUMO
A double-blind, five phase, cross-over clinical trial was used to compare a mucin-based artificial saliva (Saliva Orthana) with its non-mucin base and water. Thirty patients, acting as their own controls, took part. Saliva Orthana offered significantly greater relief from xerostomia compared with its base or water, and was significantly better at relieving soreness than water. In terms of overall preference, it was ranked significantly higher than either alternative.
Assuntos
Mucinas Gástricas/uso terapêutico , Antissépticos Bucais/uso terapêutico , Saliva Artificial/uso terapêutico , Xerostomia/terapia , Adulto , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Manejo da Dor , Distribuição Aleatória , ÁguaRESUMO
Using a template-matching pattern recognition technique evaluated in an earlier paper, the amplitude and latency of the N1-P2 wave of the vertex visual evoked potential was established on each trial of a reaction time task. This single-trial physiological information correlated meaningfully with trial-by-trial changes in performance, providing further indication of the validity and practicability of a single-trial approach to the analysis of human EP data.