Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of salivary stimulation using xylitol-malic acid tablets as coadjuvant treatment in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: early findings

Sánchez-Blanco I, Rodríguez-Téllez M, Corcuera-Flores JR, González-Blanco C, Torres-Lagares D, Serrera-Figallo MÁ, Machuca-Portillo G

Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2020

49 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background: Besides dental erosion syndrome, other oral syndromes could benefit from the stimulation of salivary secretion, in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). Our aims is evaluate the improvement of oral extra-oesophageal manifestations in patients with GORD using xylitol-malic acid tablets to stimulate salivary secretion.

Material and methods: The effectiveness of salivary stimulation using xylitol-malic acid tablets (as a supplement to omeprazole 40 mg/day) was assessed in a clinical trial (n = 14) lasting six months with patients with prior positive pH-metry, through GORD extra-oesophageal clinical signs, GerdQ and RDQ questionnaires, odontological variables, basal salivary secretion, stimulated salivary secretion, pH and buffer capacity, mucosal erythema index and dental wear.

Statistics: chi-square (Haberman post-hoc), ANOVA, and Mann-Whitney U; variables between visits were evaluated with McNemar's Student's t and Wilcoxon tests; p < 0.05.

Results: 100% of patients not taking xylitol-malic acid presented xerostomia, but only 14.3% of patients taking xylitol-malic acid (p < 0.01) did. The mean saliva-buffer capacity at the last visit for patients not taking xylitol-malic acid was 2.14 ± 0.38, versus 2.71 ± 0.49 for patients taking xylitol-malic acid (p < 0.05). Retro-sternal burning (p < 0.05), heartburn (p < 0.05) and regurgitation (p < 0.05) were also reduced.

Conclusions: Xylitol-malic acid tablets improve quality of life among patients with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 49 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free