Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37900483›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

The Effect of Herbal Denture Adhesive on Patient Satisfaction in Comparison to Traditional Type.

Maha Mekkawy, Ola Samy, Rahaf Alruhaimi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Herbal Extracts for Denture Care: Effectiveness and Safety ThroughJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maha MekkawyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Qassim University, Qassim, SAU.
Ola SamyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Qassim University, Qassim, SAU.
Rahaf AlruhaimiDental Surgery, Qassim University, Qassim, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background The aim of this study was to compare the responses of 30 denture wearers' opinions concerning the efficiency of two types of adhesives and estimate their satisfaction level using denture adhesive (DA). Materials and methods 30 completely edentulous patients were divided randomly into two groups. Each group received one type of DAs (SECURE, COREGA) and was instructed to follow the same sequence of application. Each type of adhesive was used for seven days, as recommended by the manufacturer. The patients were requested to fill out a questionnaire considering their opinion and satisfaction regarding denture retention, chewing ability and duration of adhesives. Results The majority of patients stated that the prosthetic DAs enhanced their retention, chewing, stability, and efficiency of dentures. There was a significant difference in patient satisfaction regarding denture retention in the mandible and the duration of the adhesive in the mouth. Concerning ability of the patient to remove the adhesive from their mouth, the taste, or the retention of the maxillary denture, there were no statistically significant differences between the two DAs. Conclusions The results of the present study showed that overall satisfaction of complete denture wearers was high significantly different when a herbal DA was applied. This includes improvements in their duration of retention effectiveness, greater stability, and retention of the lower mandibular dentures. To use DA effectively, patients should be oriented by their dentists. Patient education is essential to provide them with a better understanding of both the appropriate technique for applying DA and the possible outcome they may experience.

Indexed as

complete denturedenture adhesiveedentulousretentionsatisfaction

Identifiers

PMID37900483
PMCPMC10602016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.