Different saliva substitutes for treatment of xerostomia following radiotherapy. A prospective crossover study
Xerostomia is an important chronic side effect of radiotherapy in the head and neck area. The authors investigated the efficacy of different artificial saliva compounds in patients with postirradiation xerostomia. In 120 patients with xerostomia after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, four diff...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 2005-04, Vol.181 (4), p.231-236 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 236 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 231 |
container_title | Strahlentherapie und Onkologie |
container_volume | 181 |
creator | Momm, Felix Volegova-Neher, Natalja Jurievna Schulte-Mönting, Jürgen Guttenberger, Roland |
description | Xerostomia is an important chronic side effect of radiotherapy in the head and neck area. The authors investigated the efficacy of different artificial saliva compounds in patients with postirradiation xerostomia.
In 120 patients with xerostomia after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, four different saliva substitute compounds (gel, carmellose spray, oil, mucin spray) were tested in a prospective crossover design. Xerostomia at baseline and under treatment with each compound was measured with a questionnaire approved in a pilot trial.
All compounds significantly improved xerostomia when compared to baseline situation (p < 0.0001). The gel was rated best, the carmellose spray was rated worst by the patients, but the single compounds did not differ significantly in their effects. In spite of this result, most patients chose the carmellose spray as their favorite compound. This is due to its good taste and easy handling, which play an important role for the acceptance of the products. Big individual differences in the preference of the single compounds were found.
For most patients considerable relief from xerostomia can be reached by saliva substitutes. Thus, every patient with xerostomia should be given different artificial saliva compounds for a test period. This will help to find the individually best way to cope with the dry mouth. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00066-005-1333-7 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_821776834</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2226250671</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c278t-5b91d1f8b057ef9e70b53e91a17ec47de1e0f24363b64411c80c826b862eb3cf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkE1PwzAMhiMEYuPjB3BBEfcOu2mT5jjxLSFxAYlblLYOdNrWkaSD_XsyNomTLft97VcPYxcIEwRQ1wEApMwAygyFEJk6YGMshM5A6_dDNgZUOlNYViN2EsIMAGWhi2M2SqNcSZ2P2fK2c448LSMPdt6tLQ9DHWIXh0iBu97z6MnGxVbQO_5Dvg-xX3Q27ebz_rtbfnBv266Pn-TtajPhU75KmhU1sVsTb1If-jV5HuLQbs7YkbPzQOf7esre7u9ebx6z55eHp5vpc9bkqopZWWts0VU1lIqcJgV1KUijRUVNoVpCApcXQopaFgViU0FT5bKuZE61aJw4ZVe7uynL10Ahmlk_-GV6aaoclZKVKJIId6K_kJ6cWfluYf3GIJgtYLMDbBJgswVsVPJc7g8P9YLaf8eeqPgFSC15EA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>821776834</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Different saliva substitutes for treatment of xerostomia following radiotherapy. A prospective crossover study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Momm, Felix ; Volegova-Neher, Natalja Jurievna ; Schulte-Mönting, Jürgen ; Guttenberger, Roland</creator><creatorcontrib>Momm, Felix ; Volegova-Neher, Natalja Jurievna ; Schulte-Mönting, Jürgen ; Guttenberger, Roland</creatorcontrib><description>Xerostomia is an important chronic side effect of radiotherapy in the head and neck area. The authors investigated the efficacy of different artificial saliva compounds in patients with postirradiation xerostomia.
In 120 patients with xerostomia after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, four different saliva substitute compounds (gel, carmellose spray, oil, mucin spray) were tested in a prospective crossover design. Xerostomia at baseline and under treatment with each compound was measured with a questionnaire approved in a pilot trial.
All compounds significantly improved xerostomia when compared to baseline situation (p < 0.0001). The gel was rated best, the carmellose spray was rated worst by the patients, but the single compounds did not differ significantly in their effects. In spite of this result, most patients chose the carmellose spray as their favorite compound. This is due to its good taste and easy handling, which play an important role for the acceptance of the products. Big individual differences in the preference of the single compounds were found.
For most patients considerable relief from xerostomia can be reached by saliva substitutes. Thus, every patient with xerostomia should be given different artificial saliva compounds for a test period. This will help to find the individually best way to cope with the dry mouth.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0179-7158</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1439-099X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00066-005-1333-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15827692</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Adenocarcinoma - radiotherapy ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - diagnostic imaging ; Choice Behavior ; Cross-Over Studies ; Female ; Head & neck cancer ; Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Humans ; Lymphoma - radiotherapy ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Radiation therapy ; Radiography ; Radiotherapy - adverse effects ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Saliva, Artificial - therapeutic use ; Treatment Outcome ; Xerophthalmia - drug therapy ; Xerophthalmia - etiology</subject><ispartof>Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, 2005-04, Vol.181 (4), p.231-236</ispartof><rights>Urban & Vogel München 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15827692$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Momm, Felix</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Volegova-Neher, Natalja Jurievna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schulte-Mönting, Jürgen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guttenberger, Roland</creatorcontrib><title>Different saliva substitutes for treatment of xerostomia following radiotherapy. A prospective crossover study</title><title>Strahlentherapie und Onkologie</title><addtitle>Strahlenther Onkol</addtitle><description>Xerostomia is an important chronic side effect of radiotherapy in the head and neck area. The authors investigated the efficacy of different artificial saliva compounds in patients with postirradiation xerostomia.
In 120 patients with xerostomia after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, four different saliva substitute compounds (gel, carmellose spray, oil, mucin spray) were tested in a prospective crossover design. Xerostomia at baseline and under treatment with each compound was measured with a questionnaire approved in a pilot trial.
All compounds significantly improved xerostomia when compared to baseline situation (p < 0.0001). The gel was rated best, the carmellose spray was rated worst by the patients, but the single compounds did not differ significantly in their effects. In spite of this result, most patients chose the carmellose spray as their favorite compound. This is due to its good taste and easy handling, which play an important role for the acceptance of the products. Big individual differences in the preference of the single compounds were found.
For most patients considerable relief from xerostomia can be reached by saliva substitutes. Thus, every patient with xerostomia should be given different artificial saliva compounds for a test period. This will help to find the individually best way to cope with the dry mouth.</description><subject>Adenocarcinoma - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Cross-Over Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Head & neck cancer</subject><subject>Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lymphoma - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Radiotherapy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Saliva, Artificial - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Xerophthalmia - drug therapy</subject><subject>Xerophthalmia - etiology</subject><issn>0179-7158</issn><issn>1439-099X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkE1PwzAMhiMEYuPjB3BBEfcOu2mT5jjxLSFxAYlblLYOdNrWkaSD_XsyNomTLft97VcPYxcIEwRQ1wEApMwAygyFEJk6YGMshM5A6_dDNgZUOlNYViN2EsIMAGWhi2M2SqNcSZ2P2fK2c448LSMPdt6tLQ9DHWIXh0iBu97z6MnGxVbQO_5Dvg-xX3Q27ebz_rtbfnBv266Pn-TtajPhU75KmhU1sVsTb1If-jV5HuLQbs7YkbPzQOf7esre7u9ebx6z55eHp5vpc9bkqopZWWts0VU1lIqcJgV1KUijRUVNoVpCApcXQopaFgViU0FT5bKuZE61aJw4ZVe7uynL10Ahmlk_-GV6aaoclZKVKJIId6K_kJ6cWfluYf3GIJgtYLMDbBJgswVsVPJc7g8P9YLaf8eeqPgFSC15EA</recordid><startdate>200504</startdate><enddate>200504</enddate><creator>Momm, Felix</creator><creator>Volegova-Neher, Natalja Jurievna</creator><creator>Schulte-Mönting, Jürgen</creator><creator>Guttenberger, Roland</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200504</creationdate><title>Different saliva substitutes for treatment of xerostomia following radiotherapy. A prospective crossover study</title><author>Momm, Felix ; Volegova-Neher, Natalja Jurievna ; Schulte-Mönting, Jürgen ; Guttenberger, Roland</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c278t-5b91d1f8b057ef9e70b53e91a17ec47de1e0f24363b64411c80c826b862eb3cf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adenocarcinoma - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Cross-Over Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Head & neck cancer</topic><topic>Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lymphoma - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Radiotherapy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Saliva, Artificial - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Xerophthalmia - drug therapy</topic><topic>Xerophthalmia - etiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Momm, Felix</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Volegova-Neher, Natalja Jurievna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schulte-Mönting, Jürgen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guttenberger, Roland</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Strahlentherapie und Onkologie</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Momm, Felix</au><au>Volegova-Neher, Natalja Jurievna</au><au>Schulte-Mönting, Jürgen</au><au>Guttenberger, Roland</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Different saliva substitutes for treatment of xerostomia following radiotherapy. A prospective crossover study</atitle><jtitle>Strahlentherapie und Onkologie</jtitle><addtitle>Strahlenther Onkol</addtitle><date>2005-04</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>181</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>231</spage><epage>236</epage><pages>231-236</pages><issn>0179-7158</issn><eissn>1439-099X</eissn><abstract>Xerostomia is an important chronic side effect of radiotherapy in the head and neck area. The authors investigated the efficacy of different artificial saliva compounds in patients with postirradiation xerostomia.
In 120 patients with xerostomia after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, four different saliva substitute compounds (gel, carmellose spray, oil, mucin spray) were tested in a prospective crossover design. Xerostomia at baseline and under treatment with each compound was measured with a questionnaire approved in a pilot trial.
All compounds significantly improved xerostomia when compared to baseline situation (p < 0.0001). The gel was rated best, the carmellose spray was rated worst by the patients, but the single compounds did not differ significantly in their effects. In spite of this result, most patients chose the carmellose spray as their favorite compound. This is due to its good taste and easy handling, which play an important role for the acceptance of the products. Big individual differences in the preference of the single compounds were found.
For most patients considerable relief from xerostomia can be reached by saliva substitutes. Thus, every patient with xerostomia should be given different artificial saliva compounds for a test period. This will help to find the individually best way to cope with the dry mouth.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub><pmid>15827692</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00066-005-1333-7</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0179-7158 |
ispartof | Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, 2005-04, Vol.181 (4), p.231-236 |
issn | 0179-7158 1439-099X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_821776834 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals |
subjects | Adenocarcinoma - radiotherapy Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - diagnostic imaging Choice Behavior Cross-Over Studies Female Head & neck cancer Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy Humans Lymphoma - radiotherapy Male Middle Aged Radiation therapy Radiography Radiotherapy - adverse effects Radiotherapy Dosage Saliva, Artificial - therapeutic use Treatment Outcome Xerophthalmia - drug therapy Xerophthalmia - etiology |
title | Different saliva substitutes for treatment of xerostomia following radiotherapy. A prospective crossover study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T12%3A12%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Different%20saliva%20substitutes%20for%20treatment%20of%20xerostomia%20following%20radiotherapy.%20A%20prospective%20crossover%20study&rft.jtitle=Strahlentherapie%20und%20Onkologie&rft.au=Momm,%20Felix&rft.date=2005-04&rft.volume=181&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=231&rft.epage=236&rft.pages=231-236&rft.issn=0179-7158&rft.eissn=1439-099X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00066-005-1333-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2226250671%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=821776834&rft_id=info:pmid/15827692&rfr_iscdi=true |