Salivary reservoir denture – A novel approach to battle xerostomia

Maxillary reservoir denture to overcome radiation-induced xerostomia - Light at the end of the tunnel

Xerostomia is a subjective symptom of dry mouth. It can occur as a part of the systemic disease, drug-induced side effect, or following therapeutic radiation therapy to the head-and-neck region. The primary complication faced by these xerostomic patients is the difficulty in retention of removable dentures. It is important to recognize that the prosthodontic management of these patients requires special attention and care. In an attempt to overcome the presence of xerostomia, several techniques of introducing reservoirs into the dentures containing salivary substitutes have been proposed. This case report presents a simplified approach for the construction of a reservoir in the maxillary denture, specifically in patients where other treatment modalities have failed. This technique provided excellent lubrication to oral tissues, hygienic for the patient, and utilized routine denture base material.

Evaluation of the physical properties of a newly developed denture adhesive for patients with dry mouth

PURPOSE

Elderly individuals with dry mouth wearing dentures require an appropriate denture adhesive. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro properties of a newly developed denture adhesive for patients with dry mouth and compare these with those of a currently available adhesive and oral moisturizing agent.

METHODS

We developed a new gel-type denture adhesive with physical properties suitable for patients with dry mouth (DM). We subsequently performed in vitro comparisons among DM, New Poligrip (NP), and Biotene Oralbalance Gel (BT) with regard to the following properties: retention force, resistance to squeezing, and ease of removal. In accordance with the standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO10873:2010), the retention force was measured for dry samples (no water exposure, severe dry mouth model) and for samples exposed to water for 10min (normal model) and 1min (moderate dry mouth model). The resistance to squeezing was evaluated by pushing the samples out of syringes, while the ease of removal was evaluated by measuring the time required to wash the material from a polymethyl methacrylate plate.

RESULTS

In the severe dry mouth model, DM exhibited greater retention force than did NP and BT. Moreover, the resistance to squeezing was significantly lower for DM than for NP. Both BT and DM showed better ease of removal than did NP. NP was the most difficult to wash out with water.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the newly developed denture adhesive DM is suitable for use in patients with dry mouth.