4.3 Article

Preferences and saliva stimulation of eight different chewing gums

Journal

INTERNATIONAL DENTAL JOURNAL
Volume 54, Issue 3, Pages 143-148

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2004.tb00270.x

Keywords

salivary flow; chewing gum; consistency; taste

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Chewing gums have been studied for clinical use to stimulate the salivary flow rate in healthy and diseased individuals. However, differences in preferences of chewing gums may influence patient compliance during long-term use. Therefore, we compared the effect of several chewing gums on the flow rate of whole saliva and pH, and investigated the preferences of these gums. Methods: 83 healthy subjects participated in the first part of the study. Both parafilm-stimulated and chewing gum-stimulated whole saliva from 8 different chewing gums was collected and salivary flow rate and pH Were determined. In another group of 112 healthy subjects, we investigated the preferences for the chewing gums with a 10-item questionnaire. Results: All gums had comparable effects on salivary flow rate and pH. The average increase in flow rate was 187% during the first minute of chewing compared with parafilm stimulation. After 10 minutes of gum chewing, the amount of saliva was equal to parafilm stimulation. The questionnaire showed differences in preferences for the chewing gums, which were related to taste and gum shape. Gender interactions were observed for sparkling taste (p = 0.019), total judgement (p = 0.047) and the willingness to use the gum for several weeks (p = 0.037). Conclusions: Although all chewing gums stimulated the salivary flow rate equally, the observed differences in preferences may influence long-term compliance. Therefore, we recommend that chewing gums are tested before the start of clinical studies, to identify the most accepted chewing gum for specific groups of patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available