ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2021
Efficacy and safety of two artificial saliva-based polymers containing 0.1% pilocarpine for treatment of xerostomia: A randomized clinical pilot trial.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the 1 and 2% pilocarpine mouthwash in a xerostomic population: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2022Trial
- Comparable Effectiveness of Novel and Commercial Saliva Substitute Gels in Dental Patients Experiencing Xerostomia: A Randomized, Double-Blind Crossover Trial.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Xerostomia: Advances and Challenges in Drug Development.Current drug targets · 2024Article
- A Review on the Role of Pilocarpine on the Management of Xerostomia and the Importance of the Topical Administration Systems Development.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTopical agents are the mainstay in the treatment of xerostomia, a common complaint most frequently associated with salivary dysfunction. This study aimed to compared the efficacy and safety for xerostomia treatment of 2 artificial saliva preparations containing 0.1% pilocarpine, and, either sodium carboxymethylcellulose (SCMC), or, sodium polyacrylate (SPA). MATERIAL AND
methodsThirty-one xerostomia patients were randomly allocated into either a SCMC-treated group (15 patients), or, a SPA-treated group (16 patients). The formulations were taken 0.5 ml, 4 times daily for 6 weeks and double-blinded assessed before and after treatments using Xerostomia Inventory (XI) and Clinical Oral Dryness Score (CODs). Unstimulated and stimulated whole salivary flow rates were measured.
resultsAfter treatment, the SCMC-treated group had significantly lower CODs and higher unstimulated and stimulated whole salivary flow rates (
conclusionsThis randomized controlled pilot trial demonstrated superior efficacy of SCMC-formula over a SPA-formula after 6 weeks of xerostomia treatment. These formulations with topical pilocarpine proved safe in clinical use with minimal reported AE.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.