Evaluation of Efficacy of Pilocarpine and Bethanechol in Xerostomic Denture Wearers.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness of bethanechol and pilocarpine among xerostomic denture wearers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This in vitro study was conducted in 60 complete denture wearers of both genders. For assessment of salivary flow, resting saliva and stimulated saliva were collected. Patients were split into two groups consisting of 30 patients each. Pilocarpine was given to patients in group I and patients in group II received bethanechol. Salivary flow was measured at baseline, after 2 weeks, and after 4 weeks. RESULTS: The mean whole resting saliva in patients of group I was 0.61 mg/mL and in that of group II was 0.65 mg/mL. The mean whole stimulated saliva in patients of group I was 1.35 mg/mL and in group II it was 1.51 mg/mL. The mean whole resting saliva after 2 weeks in patients of group I was 0.83 mg/mL and in group II was 0.92 mg/mL. Whole stimulated saliva in patients of group I was 1.67 mg/mL, and in patients of group II it was 1.86 mg/mL. The difference noted was significant (P < 0.05). The mean whole resting saliva after 4 weeks in patients of group I was 1.23 mg/mL and in that of group II was 1.43 mg/mL. Whole stimulated saliva in patients of group I was 1.98 mg/mL and in patients of group II it was 2.04 mg/mL. CONCLUSION: Authors found that both agents were effective in increasing salivary secretions. However, pilocarpine is a more effective sialagogue as compared to bethanechol in completely edentulous patients with xerostomia.

Assessment of Aluminum Chloride Retraction Cords, Expasyl, and Tetrahydrozoline-Soaked Retraction Systems in Gingival Retraction.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess different gingival displacement systems such as aluminum chloride retraction cords, expasyl, and tetrahydrozoline-soaked retraction cord to record intracrevicular margins of tooth preparations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 60 patients. Patients were divided into four groups of 15 each. In group I, aluminum chloride retraction cords, in group II expasyl, in group III tetrahydrozoline-soaked retraction cord, and in group IV no retraction cord were used. RESULTS: The mean gingival displacement (µm) in group I was 825.6, in group II was 482.1, in group III was 742.3, and in group IV was 214.8. Significant difference was seen in between groups by one-way analysis of variance as P < 0.05. Post hoc Tukey analysis showed significant difference during multiple comparison between groups. CONCLUSION: Authors found that maximum gingival retraction was achieved with aluminum chloride retraction cords followed by tetrahydrozoline and expasyl.

Comparative study of efficacy of oral ivermectin versus some topical antiscabies drugs in the treatment of scabies.

BACKGROUND: The conventionally used topical antiscabetics have poor compliance. Ivermectin, an oral antiparasitic drug, has been shown to be an effective scabicide and could be a useful substitute. This study was designed to compare efficacy of oral ivermectin with commonly used topical antiscabies drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted on four groups including 60 patients in each group by simple random sampling. Treatment given in each group was: Group 1: Ivermectin (200 µg/kg body weight) oral in a single dose, Group 2: Topical Permethrin 5% cream single application, Group 3: Topical gamma benzene hexachloride (GBHC) lotion 1% single application and Group 4: Topical Benzyl benzoate (BB) lotion 25% single application. All of the patients were followed for improvement in terms of severity of disease and severity of pruritus at the end of 1(st) wk and 6(th) wk. RESULTS: Efficacy of ivermectin, permethrin, GBHC and BB lotion considering improvement in severity of pruritus as parameter were 85%, 90%, 75% and 68.33% respectively at 2(nd) follow-up. Similarly considering improvement in severity of lesion as parameter, results were 80%, 88.33%, 71.66% and 65% respectively at 2(nd) follow up. Topical Permethrin (5%) was more effective as compared to topical BB lotion and topical GBHC lotion (p<0.05, significant) but statistical difference between efficacy of topical Permethrin and oral Ivermectin was non-significant (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The results suggested that oral Ivermectin and topical Permethrin (5%) were equally efficacious. Oral Ivermectin is well tolerated, non irritant to skin, does not show central nervous system side effects because it does not cross blood brain barrier. So, the good therapeutic response with few side effects seen with oral Ivermectin can be useful in those patients for whom topical treatment is potentially irritant and less well-tolerated.