ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2025
Comparative Mucosal Wetting Capacity of Novel and Commercial Saliva Substitute Formulations: An in vitro Study.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the effectiveness of novel, inexpensive saliva substitute formulas (Rangsit University (RSU) preparation) in maintaining mucosal wetness compared with commercial products. Materials and Methods: In vitro experiments were conducted using swine tongues to assess the wetness of various RSU saliva substitute solutions and gels, with four flavors each (sweet mint, sweet vanilla, sweet-sour mint, and sweet-sour lemon), compared with water, hospital-based mouth rinse from a government dental school, and commercial products (Biotene Results: All saliva substitutes consistently maintained a higher relative wetness than water, particularly beyond 60 minutes ( Conclusion: Our novel saliva substitute formulas show similar effectiveness to commercial products in maintaining mucosal wetness. These inexpensive products could be a viable alternative for patients with dry mouth who cannot afford commercial formulations.
Indexed as
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.