Efficacy of GUM® Hydral versus Biotène® Oralbalance mouthwashes plus gels on symptoms of medication-induced xerostomia: a randomized, double-blind, crossover study.

objectivesThe objective of this study is to determine the efficacy of GUM® Hydral versus Biotène® Oralbalance (both a mouthwash plus gel) on the subjective burden and clinical symptoms of patients with medication-induced xerostomia. MATERIALS AND

methodsSubjects (N = 40) with medication-induced xerostomia (minimum 4/10 mm visual analog scale [VAS]) were randomized to treatment with GUM Hydral or Biotène Oralbalance mouthwash, both with gel, for 28 days. Subjects then entered a 21-day wash-out period, before crossing over to the other treatment for 28 days. Outcomes measured included the VAS, German Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIPG)-14, Xerostomia Questionnaire (XQ), after-use questionnaire, and clinical parameters.

resultsBoth GUM Hydral and Biotène Oralbalance significantly (p < 0.05) reduced VAS, OHIPG-14 total score and single items, and XQ Part 1 (oral dryness, oral pain, taste loss) and Part 2 items. GUM Hydral also significantly reduced the XQ Part 1 dysphagia score, while Biotène Oralbalance significantly reduced the halitosis organoleptic score and plaque index. Significant increases in saliva secretion did not reach clinical relevance. No significant between-group differences were observed, apart from OHIPG-14 items "trouble pronouncing words" and "uncertainty" in favor of GUM Hydral. No adverse effects were reported.

conclusionsBoth products effectively improve oral health and xerostomia-related quality of life. However, they cannot completely substitute the continuous in-mouth secretion of saliva, and symptomatic relief is temporary. Product selection will be based on personal preference. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both products diminish xerostomic burden and should be part of the management strategy. Affected patients should be informed of these treatments, since no adverse effects were reported.