Publications by authors named "Mounir Atassi"

4 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

A proof-of-principle bite force study using two experimental test denture adhesives and a currently marketed denture adhesive.

Clin Exp Dent Res 2020 04 6;6(2):266-273. Epub 2020 Feb 6.

TKL Research, Bloomfield, NJ, USA.

Objectives: This proof-of-principle, single-center, randomized, examiner-blind, crossover study compared two experimental polyvinyl acetate (PVA)-based denture adhesives (Test Adhesives 1 and 2) with a marketed reference polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PMV/MA)-based adhesive and no adhesive using incisal bite force area over baseline over 12 hr (AOB ) in participants with an at least moderately well-fitting complete maxillary denture. Previous in vitro studies suggested the experimental denture adhesives provided superior performance.

Materials And Methods: Participants were randomized to a treatment sequence such that each received each treatment once. Prior to treatment application (baseline) and at 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hr following the application, participants bit on a force transducer until their maxillary denture dislodged. Between-treatment differences in AOB were analyzed using analysis of covariance. For study validity, the reference adhesive was compared with no adhesive. Participants were asked to rate sensory experiences and ease of denture removal.

Results: Twenty-three participants were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. Although Test Adhesives 1 and 2 had a higher mean AOB than no adhesive, differences were not statistically significant. No statistically significant difference was also found between the reference adhesive and no adhesive; hence, study validity was not attained. Participants did not report any clear differences between the test or reference adhesives in terms of taste or feel; however, dentures were easier to remove with the test adhesives versus reference. No treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Conclusion: Neither the experimental PVA-based denture adhesives nor the PMV/MA-based reference product demonstrated a statistically significant difference in incisal bite force AOB compared with no adhesive. The reasons for these unexpected results is unclear; they suggest that findings of in vitro tests for denture adhesive performance are not always translated to in vivo performance ( NCT02937870).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source Listing
April 2020

A randomized clinical study to evaluate the effect of denture adhesive application technique on food particle accumulation under dentures.

Clin Exp Dent Res 2019 08 17;5(4):316-325. Epub 2019 Jun 17.

Salus Research Inc. Fort Wayne Indiana USA.

Food ingress under dentures is a common problem that may be reduced by denture adhesive use. The objective of this study was to explore the effect of the mode of application of a denture adhesive on reducing accumulation of food particles under dentures. This was a single-centre, controlled, single-blind, randomized, three-treatment, three-period, crossover study in participants with complete, removable well-fitting, well-made upper/lower dentures. Treatments were: 1) experimental denture adhesive application (test adhesive) applied with a precision applicator as continuous strips; 2) marketed denture adhesive (positive control) applied using a flat ribbon nozzle as dabs; 3) no adhesive. Food-occlusion testing was performed by assessing peanut particle migration under dentures with denture retention/stability evaluated using the Kapur Index (Olshan modification). Differences were assessed using an ANOVA model. Adhesive oozing and perceptions of the adhesives were assessed by questionnaire. All 83 randomized participants completed the study. There were no significant differences between positive control or test adhesives versus no adhesive, or between test adhesive and positive control, for mass of peanut particles recovered from dentures. Both adhesives had significantly higher retention and stability scores compared with no adhesive (all  < .01). Participants reported significantly higher scores for denture comfort, confidence, satisfaction and movement with both adhesives versus no adhesive (all  < .01). No differences in adhesive ooze were reported between adhesives. No adverse events were reported. In conclusion, there was no difference in performance, as measured by peanut particle mass recovered from upper/lower dentures, for the test adhesive, positive control and no adhesive.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source Listing
August 2019

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Measure Mouth Moisturization and Dry Mouth Relief in Dry Mouth Subjects Using Dry Mouth Products.

J Clin Dent 2017 Jun;28(2):32-38

TKL Research Inc., Ramsey and Bloomfield, NJ, USA.

Objectives: This study examined ratings of two subjective aspects (moisturization and dry mouth relief) that may be changed following the use of dry mouth relief products (an oral gel, an oral rinse, or a mouth spray), in comparison to water over a period of four hours following a single supervised use on two separate occasions.

Methods: This was a single-center, two site, randomized, examiner blind, four treatment arm, stratified (by dry mouth screening score at baseline), parallel group study in healthy subjects with a self-reported feeling of dry mouth. Prior to product use, subjects rated their current subjective perception of moisturization and dry mouth on an 11-point scale. Subjects then rated the two questions immediately after product use and 30, 60, 90, 120, and 240 minutes later. At the 240-minute time point, subjects also rated global efficacy questions regarding "overall" and "long-lasting" moisturization and dry mouth relief, and overall product opinion. Subjects then used their assigned products at home for three days and the procedures were repeated on Day 4.

Results: In total, 300 subjects were randomized to treatment. Compared with water, all test products showed statistically significantly greater improvements over baseline on both Day 1 and Day 4 at most time points, on the area under the curve from baseline for the moisturization and dryness questions, and after 240 minutes for the global efficacy and overall opinion assessments (all p < 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference between the pre-dosing assessments on Day 1 versus Day 4 (p < 0.001) for both efficacy questions. Products were generally well-tolerated.

Conclusions: Three different types of dry mouth relief products were shown to provide significant relief of dry mouth and increased feelings of moisturization compared to water using subjective questionnaires.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

June 2017

The lateral pterygoid muscle, a heterogeneous unit implicated in temporomandibular disorder: a literature review.

Cranio 2007 Oct;25(4):283-91

School of Biology and Health, University of Lille.

Based on its anatomical relationships, the lateral pterygoid muscle is strongly linked with the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). It plays a major role in mastication. Embryological, histological, and anatomical knowledge define the lateral pterygoid muscle as a single muscle with a penniform structure. The various results of electromyographic (EMG) studies describe a complex physiology with a chronological contraction of the layers during the masticatory cycle. The sequential contraction of the layers of the lateral pterygoid muscle is the result of a selective neuronal activation induced by the masticatory Central Pattern Generator (mCPG). This neurophysiological theory highlights the essential role of the reticular formation in oral motor control. The sensitivity of those neurological structures to chronic emotional stress is one of the possible explanations for the appearance of oral parafunctions accompanied by a modification of pain perception and a disorganized muscular activation, determining factors in temporomandibular disorders.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source Listing
October 2007