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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 2005-04, Vol.181 (4), p.231-236
Hauptverfasser: Momm, Felix, Volegova-Neher, Natalja Jurievna, Schulte-Mönting, Jürgen, Guttenberger, Roland
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 &lt; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &lt; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; 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 &lt; 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