Satisfaction of Users of Full Dentures With Adhesive: A Systematic Review of The Literature

Research, Society and Development, v. 10, n.
7, e5710716200, 2021
(CC BY 4.0) | ISSN 2525-3409 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i7.16200
Satisfaction of users of full dentures with adhesive: A systematic review of the

literature
Satisfação de usuários de próteses totais com adesivo: Uma revisão sistemática da literatura
Satisfacción de los usuarios de dentaduras postizas completas con adhesivo: Uma revisión
sistemática de la literatura
Received: 05/17/2021 | Reviewed: 05/27/2021 | Accept: 05/31/2021 | Published: 06/13/2021
Keith Murieli Ferreira de Magalhães

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3671-8255
Sao Paulo State University, Brazil
E-mail: [email protected]
Ariane Rodrigues Barion
Gabriela Sumie Yaguinuma Gonçalves
Cecília Alves de Sousa
Wirley Gonçalves Assunção
Abstract
Objective: To review the literature systematically in relation to the effectiveness of the adhesive for dental prostheses
presented in terms of patient satisfaction and to evaluate the differences regarding the use or not of them.
Methodology: A search was carried out in the databases PubMed / MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science
according to the criteria of Preferred Reports for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. The PICO question was
used to address the following specific question: "Patients who use adhesives on full denture satisfaction?". Results:
Sixteen studies with a total of 1133 patients with age average of 67 years were included; in relation to masticatory
capacity, improvement was found in feeding, increased vertical movement in the mandible and less intrusion of the
prosthesis. As for satisfaction, studies have shown greater comfort, improvement in social, psychological, quality of
life and oral health and self-confidence. No serious side effects have been reported and only oral adverse events have
been coded. Conclusion: Although adhesives for dental prostheses do not improve their function, that is, they are not
capable of problems related to anatomy or errors in the manufacture of the prosthesis, they affect as subjective
evaluations of patients. The use of adhesives for prolonged complete dentures increases their retention and stability
and positively affects the patient's satisfaction with regard to masticatory capacity, comfort and confidence, provided
the recovery is adequate.
Keywords: Complete denture; Patient satisfaction; Denture adhesives; Questionnaire.
Resumo
Objetivo: Revisar a literatura sistematicamente em relação à eficácia do adesivo para próteses dentárias
convencionais em termos de satisfação dos pacientes e avaliar as diferenças quanto à utilização ou não dos mesmos.
Metodologia: Uma busca foi realizada nos bancos de dados PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus e Web of Science
de acordo com os critérios de Relatórios Preferidos para Revisões Sistemáticas e Meta-Análise. A questão PICO foi
usada para abordar a seguinte questão específica: "Pacientes que utilizam adesivos em próteses totais apresentam
maior satisfação?". Resultados: Dezesseis estudos com um total de 1133 pacientes com idade média de 67 anos foram
incluídos; em relação à capacidade mastigatória, foi encontrada melhora na alimentação, aumento no movimento
vertical na mandíbula e menor intrusão da prótese. Quanto à satisfação, estudos demonstraram maior conforto,
melhora nos aspectos sociais, psicológicos, qualidade de vida e saúde bucal e autoconfiança. Não foram relatados
1
Research, Society and Development, v. 10, n. 7, e5710716200, 2021
efeitos colaterais graves e apenas eventos adversos orais foram codificados. Conclusão: Embora os adesivos para
próteses dentárias não melhorem sua função, ou seja, não são capazes de resolver problemas relacionados à anatomia
ou erros de confecção da prótese, eles afetam as avaliações subjetivas dos pacientes. O uso de adesivos para próteses
totais convencionais aumenta significativamente sua retenção e estabilidade e afeta positivamente a satisfação do
paciente quanto a capacidade mastigatória, conforto e confiança, desde que as mesmas estejam adequadas.
Palavras-chave: Prótese total; Satisfação do paciente; Adesivos para próteses dentárias; Questionário.
Resumen
Objetivo: Revisar la literatura de manera sistemática en relación a la efectividad del adhesivo para prótesis dentales
presentada en términos de satisfacción del paciente y evaluar las diferencias en cuanto al uso o no de las mismas.
Metodología: Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos PubMed / MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus y Web of Science
según los criterios de Preferred Reports para Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metanálisis. La pregunta PICO se utilizó para
abordar la siguiente pregunta específica: "Pacientes que usan adhesivos para una completa satisfacción con la
dentadura postiza?". Resultados: Se incluyeron 16 estudios con un total de 1133 pacientes con edad promedio de 67
años; en relación a la capacidad masticatoria, se encontró mejoría en la alimentación, mayor movimiento vertical en
la mandíbula y menor intrusión de la prótesis. En cuanto a la satisfacción, los estudios han demostrado una mayor
comodidad, mejora social, psicológica, calidad de vida y salud bucal y autoconfianza. No se han informado efectos
secundarios graves y solo se han codificado los eventos adversos orales. Conclusión: Si bien los adhesivos para
prótesis dentales no mejoran su función, es decir, no son capaces de presentar problemas relacionados con la
anatomía o errores en la fabricación de la prótesis, inciden como evaluaciones subjetivas de los pacientes. El uso de
adhesivos para prótesis completas prolongadas aumenta su retención y estabilidad e incide positivamente en la
satisfacción del paciente en cuanto a capacidad masticatoria, comodidad y confianza, siempre que la recuperación sea
adecuada.
Palabras clave: Dentadura total; Satisfacción del paciente; Adhesivos para prótesis dentales; Cuestionario.
1. Introduction
The literature indicates an increase in life expectancy of which, and although the rate of edentulism has fallen in
recent years, there are still many countries with a large number of toothless patients who are undergoing treatment with
complete dentures (Kumar et al., 2011). Despite technological advances and the evolution of implant dentistry, there are
systemic contraindications and a cost-benefit ratio that does not allow the manufacture of prostheses on implants during
rehabilitation planning (Marin et al., 2014). It should be noted that the absence of teeth, in addition to providing a change in
masticatory efficiency, speech and aesthetics, also offers an imbalance in the stomatognathic system.
Thus, a correct adaptation between a total prosthesis and the adjacent mucosa is fundamental for the success of the
rehabilitation treatment (Guimarães et al., 2018). However, it is common to find cases that present alveolar edges with great
resorption, adapt in lesser support to support and maintain a conventional rehabilitation with total prosthesis (Spenciere et al.,
2009), requiring the use of prosthetic adhesives to keep these prostheses in function and promote an improvement in
adaptation, allowing correct masticatory efficiency, balanced distribution of tolerance and patient satisfaction.
Also known as removable denture holders, prosthetic adhesives were initially used in the late 18th century, but were
mentioned in the dental literature in 1935, when the American Dental Association called it non-medicinal, along with the
dental materials board (Yankell et al., 1984). In addition to provide adherence and retention of the total prosthesis to the oral
mucosa, assist in stability, comfort, increase in masticatory activity and reduction in the accumulation of food under the
denture (Nishi et al., 2020).
According to research, about 30% of denture users used adhesives at some point (Wilson et al., 1990; Coates et al.,
2000; Koronis et al., 2012; Papadiochou et al., 2015). There are several commercially available forms, Grasso (Grasso et al.,
2004) suggested that denture adhesives should be categorized into soluble and insoluble groups. The soluble category includes
creams, powders and pastes, while the insoluble group consists of wafers and lozenges. In addition, based on their
composition, denture adhesives can be divided into natural or synthetic denture adhesives. There is no consensus in the
literature about one type of adhesive being better than another (Grasso et al., 2004; Guimarães et al., 2018).
2
Self-perception studies report that when using prostheses with adhesive, comfort and satisfaction increased, thus
improving OHRQoL (Oral Health-Related Quality of Life) (AlRumaih et al., 2018; Guimarães et al., 2018). However, there is
a concern regarding the adverse effects of using adhesive for dental prosthesis, specifically changes in tissues and increased
bone resorption (Psillakis et al., 2004). Some disadvantages such as irritation of the oral mucosa, changes in occlusal
relationships, increased vertical dimension, increased alveolar bone loss, have been reported regarding the use of denture
adhesives, especially insoluble ones, although without evidence (Nishi et al., 2020).
The aim of this article was to systematically review the literature regarding the effectiveness of the adhesive for
conventional dental prostheses in terms of retention, stability and masticatory performance. And evaluate the differences
regarding the use or not of dental prosthesis adhesives.
2. Methods
Inclusion criteria were: (1) English-language studies, (2) randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), (3)
prospective studies, (4) clinical cases (5) with at least 10 patients. The exclusion criteria were: (1) in vitro studies, (2)
retrospective studies, (3) reviews, (4) uncontrolled clinical cases, which had no direct comparison and with incomplete data
that did not allow the collection of information.
The selection of articles was carried out by three independent reviewers previously calibrated (K.M.F.M, A.R.B,
C.A.S). The authors conducted an electronic search on PubMed / MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science for articles
published until February 2020 according to the eligibility criteria, using the following search terms "Total prosthesis, patient
satisfaction and prosthetic patches total". The research strategy was as follows: ("denture, complete"[MeSH Terms] OR
("denture"[All Fields] AND "complete"[All Fields]) OR "complete denture"[All Fields] OR ("complete"[All Fields] AND
"dentures"[All Fields]) OR "complete dentures"[All Fields]) AND ("patient satisfaction"[MeSH Terms] OR ("patient"[All
Fields] AND "satisfaction"[All Fields]) OR "patient satisfaction"[All Fields]) AND ("dental cements"[MeSH Terms] OR
("dental"[All Fields] AND "cements"[All Fields]) OR "dental cements"[All Fields] OR ("denture"[All Fields] AND
"adhesives"[All Fields]) OR "denture adhesives"[All Fields]). In addition, a manual search was carried out in the main journals
in the area.
Initially, the articles were selected by title and abstract according to the pre-established eligibility criteria and all
discrepancies in the searches carried out in the databases were analyzed by a fourth reviewer (W.G.A.) through a consensus
meeting. Two authors (A.R.B., K.M.F.M) collected the relevant information from the articles and a third author (C.A.S.)
reviewed all the information collected. The variables collected from the articles were: author / year, country, types of studies,
number of patients, sex, average age, groups, location, follow-up, patch used, evaluation criteria, parameters used, advantages
and results.
3. Results
Literature Search
A search of the selected databases found a total of 89 articles, including 25 from Pubmed, 19 from Embase, 30
Scopus and 15 from Web of Science. The application of the inclusion / exclusion criteria to the titles and abstracts of the
selected comparative studies left 16 studies. Details on the search strategy are presented in the flowchart (shown in Fig. 1).
3
Figure 1. Study design PRISMA.
Source: Authors.
Description of the studies

Among these sixteen studies, ten were clinical cases and the other six were randomized clinical trials. They compared
the author / year, country, types of studies, number of patients, sex, average age, groups, location, follow-up, patch used,
evaluation criteria, parameters used, advantages and results (Table 1).
4
Table 1. General data on the selected studies.
Author/Year Country Study Patients Patient Selection Sex Age Groups Study location Tests Follow up
Design (years) performed
Bartelett/2013 U.K. Clinical 35 Total prosthesis users 13 men, 73.9 There was no separation of Guy’s Hospital NDNS and 30 days
Study with up to 7 years of 22 groups, all used the folder OHPI Edent
use women Poligrip ® Denture Adhesive questionnaires
Cream and Wilcoxon
tests
Guimarães/2018 Brazil Clinical 15 Total prosthesis users N.C. N.C. Group with adhesive (Corega University of São Paulo - Satisfaction N.C.
Study Ultra) and without adhesive Faculty of Dentistry questionnaires
and GOHAI
tests
Hamad/ 2018 Saudi Clinical 20 Toothless individuals 11 men, 9 68.20 MB, HB, MBA and HBA N.C. Retention test N.C.
Arabia Study who accepted the women
manufacture of new
complete dentures
Koronis/2012 Greece Clinical 30 Toothless individuals 18 men, 68.4 Unique group that should use Athens Dental School Satisfaction N.C.
Study who accepted the 12 Fittydent ®, Protefix ® and Questionnaires
manufacture of new women Seabond ®
complete dentures
Kulak/2005 Turkey RCT 30 Toothless individuals 14 men, 62 PVM-MA and CC University of Marmara in Test of N.C.
with at least 5 years 16 Istanbul Wilcoxon
of using complete women
dentures.
Marin/2014 Brazil RCT 44 Toothless individuals 14 men, 64.8 Protocol 1 and Protocol 2 Faculty of Dentistry of Satisfaction N.C.
who accepted the 30 Araraquara questionnaires
manufacture of new women and a
complete dentures kinesiograph to
record
mandibular
movements
Munoz/2011 New RCT 37 Users of complete 19 men, 70.65 Adhesive-free, Cream not sold, University Index Kapur N.C.
York and adjusted lower 18 Super Poligrip® Free at Buffalo School of Dental
complete dentures. women and SuperPoligrip® Strip Medicine
Owhada/2019 Tokyo RCT 200 Toothless individuals 95 men, 77 Cream Adhesive, Powder N.C. Visual Analog N.C.
who accepted the 105 Adhesive and Control Group Scale of 10mm
manufacture of new women
complete dentures
Petersen/2019 Clinical 200 N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C.
5
Trial
Pradíes/2009 Spain Clinical 24 Total edentulous with N.C. 58 Without adhesive, Control Complutense University of N.C. 2 weeks
Study use of at least 1 year adhesive and Experimental Madrid.
adhesive
Psikallis/2014 New Clinical 194 Users of bimaxillary 77 men, 66,6 Without adhesive and With Consultóriosparticulares Satisfaction and N.C.
York Study prostheses 117 adhesive test
women questionnaires
using the
gnometer
Torres-Sanchez/2014 Spain RCT 17 Users of complete 6 men, 11 51,41 Without adhesive (WA), with School of Dentistry at the Visual Analog N.C.
dentures, with women adhesive A (AA) and with University of Seville Scale of 10mm
dentures installed 2 adhesive B (BA)
months before the
study
Kelsey/1997 U.S.A. Clinical 25 Total toothless with 13 men, 65 Effergrip, Fixodent, Orafix, University of Michigan Satisfaction N.C.
Study at least 5 years of 12 Secure and Super PoliGrip. questionnaires
denture use. women
Uysal/ 1998 Turkey Clinical 32 Total toothless 14 men, 61.47 Fittydent I®*, Fittydent II®, Hacettepe University at N.C. N.C.
Study 18 Proteﬁx® and Seabond® Ankara
women
Nishi/2019 Japan RCT 200 Toothless individuals N.C. 76,6 Control, Powder adhesive and Iwate Medical University, Visual Analog 4 days
who accepted the Cream adhesive Tohoku Scale of 10mm
manufacture of new
complete dentures
Mañes/2011 Spain Clinical 30 Patients using N.C. N.C. Benfix®, Fittydent® and N.C. Satisfaction N.C.
Study removable full Supercorega®. questionnaire
dentures, regardless and a spring
of how long the scale for
dentures were used or measuring the
the quality and retention force
retention in grams
performance
N.C.: no reported. Source: Authors.
6
General data from included studies
A total of 1133 patients with an average age of 67 years were included in the studies, they were individuals in which
the total dentures already had a time of use or who accepted the manufacture of new dental prostheses. Most studies were
conducted in universities (Kelsey et al., 1997; Uysal et al., 1998; Kulak et al., 2005; Pradíes et al., 2009; Koronis et al., 2012;
Munoz et al., 2012; Bartlett et al., 2013; Marin et al., 2014; Guimarães et al., 2018; Torres-Sánchez et al., 2018; Ohwada et al.,
2020) and only one in a private practice (Psillakis et al., 2004). Most studies included patients of both sexes (Kelsey et al.,
1997; Uysal et al., 1998; Kulak et al., 2005; Pradíes et al., 2009; Munoz et al., 2012; Koronis et al., 2012; Bartlett et al., 2013;
Ohwada et al., 2020). Eight studies randomly divided individuals into groups to compare different brands of adhesive and all
selected studies assessed patient satisfaction using questionnaires and scales (Kelsey et al., 1997; Uysal et al., 1998; Psillakis et
al., 2004; Kulak et al., 2005; Pradíes et al., 2009; Koronis et al., 2012; Munoz et al., 2012; Bartlett et al., 2013; Marin et al.,
2014; Guimarães et al., 2018; Torres-Sánchez et al., 2018; Nishi et al., 2020; Ohwada et al., 2020). Most studies included
patients who had less than 7 years of total prosthesis use (Kelsey et al., 1997; Uysal et al., 1998; Psillakis et al., 2004; Kulak et
al., 2005; Pradíes et al., 2009; Mañes et al., 2011; Munoz et al., 2012; Bartlett et al., 2013; Guimarães et al., 2018; Torres-
Sánchez et al., 2018; Ohwada et al., 2020) and five studies made new prostheses (Koronis et al., 2012; Marin et al., 2014;
AlRumaih et al., 2017; Nishi et al., 2020; Ohwada et al., 2020). Most of the selected studies did not present enough data on the
follow-up period of the selected individuals.
Overall Satisfaction
According to the assessment made by Guimaraes (Guimarães et al., 2018), 60% of individuals reported comfort with
the use of the patch, 67% reported improvement in social and psychological aspects, not needing to use medications to reduce
discomfort and pain. The same had already been exposed by Bartllet (Bartllet et al., 2013) who observed an improvement in
the quality of life and oral health. According to Koronis (Koronis et al., 2012), 65% of individuals reported satisfaction in use
and increased self-confidence for social activities. Likewise, in the study by Muñoz (Muñoz et al., 2012) patients rated
comfort, confidence and satisfaction as significantly higher with the use of adhesive and also less movement (oscillation), just
as Marin (Marin et al., 2014) obtained a result of general satisfaction statistically significant. Mañes (Mañes et al., 2011)
(showed an increase in the satisfaction index for various functions of the prosthesis, the same was shown by Torres-Sanchez
(Torres-Sanchez et al., 2018) in which patients satisfaction with the use of adhesives was significantly higher and the use of
adhesives also prevented food to enter under the prosthesis, which would cause irritation and pain in the mucosa due to
friction. Ohwada (Ohwada et al., 2020) did not show significant differences in the general satisfaction or in the Impact Profile
on Oral Health in Toothless Patients and Nishi (Nishi et al., 2020) had as subjective result of the satisfaction index a value
below the expected in the visual analog scale.
Satisfaction Based on Adhesive Type

As previously mentioned, Bartllet (Bartllet et al., 2013) reported improvement in eating behavior and chewing
efficiency of patients who used the Poligrip Denture Adhesive Cream adhesive, implying an increase in the quality of life
associated with oral health. Koronis (Koronis et al., 2012) showed Fittydent (pad type adhesive) as the preferred adhesive
among patients, as well as the studies by Polyzois (Polyzois et al., 2012) and Mañes (Mañes et al., 2011), which also indicated
participants' preference in favor of Fittydent. Uysal (Uysal et al., 1998), also evaluated cushion adhesives, among them
Fittydent, showing positive results.
Marin (Marin et al., 2014) reported a high level of general satisfaction and altered jaw movements, with increased
vertical movements of the jaw during chewing and less intrusion of the upper total dentures with the use of Ultra Corega
7
Cream. While Muñoz (Muñoz et al., 2012) and Ohwada (Ohwada et al., 2020) reported greater confidence, comfort and
satisfaction in the group with denture cream adhesive (Poligrip and GlaxoSmithKline). Still, chewing, retention, comfort and
aesthetics significantly improved in the powder type adhesive group (Poligrip Powder and GlaxoSmithKline) in the study by
Ohwada (Ohwada et al., 2020).
In the study by Torres-Sanchez (Torres-Sanchez et al., 2018), in which Fittydent and Corega GlaxoSmithKline were
evaluated, the authors concluded that adhesives for complete dentures significantly improve patient satisfaction, as better
retention, stability and less accumulation of food particles between the prosthesis and the mucosa compared to not using
adhesives.
Kulak (Kulak et al., 2005) evaluated cream-type adhesives and reported improvement in the patient's subjective
satisfaction levels, with the adhesive paste for dental prostheses based on the polymethylvinyl ether-maleic anhydride
compound (PVM-MA) classified as superior. Psillakis (Psillakis et al., 2004) showed that patients reported improvement in the
perception of prosthesis performance and comfort with the use of Fixodent cream adhesive.
This indicates that, among the participants who chose to use some adhesive for dentures, of those selected, most
studies point the adhesive in the most comfortable, presenting the best results due to the social and psychological aspects, with
increased confidence of the patient. patient, stability and retention of the prosthesis, improvement of oral health and quality of
life, reduction of pain and discomfort, thus minimizing the need to use analgesic medications.
Adhesive Removal
According to Muñoz (Muñoz et al., 2012) while 14 (47%) individuals considered the removal of the adhesive paste
PVM - MA easy, 7 (23%) considered it difficult. The removal of the adhesive paste CC was considered easy by 9 (30%) and
difficult by 17 (57%) of the patients. There were no significant differences between the two adhesives in the removal of the
prostheses (p = 0.67). Koronis (Koronis et al., 2012) reported that Fittydent was considered the most difficult adhesive to
remove from the prosthesis support area compared to Protefix and Seabond.
Adverse events
No serious adverse events have been reported and only oral adverse events have been coded. In the study by Koronis
(Koronis et al., 2012), five patients reported several complaints related to the use of adhesive pad type, such as "difficulty" in
adapting the size of the pillow to suit the prosthesis, "redness", "irritation" and "burning" ". In two cases, patients were unable
to use any of the pillow brands. Specifically, one participant cannot use Fittydent ® cushions due to "thickness", while another
cannot use Seabond ® cushions because they have caused "the desire to vomit".
4. Discussion
The most common type of rehabilitation in edentulous patients is still the installation of removable conventional full
dentures. However, due to the limitations of the residual ridge, patients may encounter adaptation difficulties related to
retention, comfort and masticatory efficiency. In order to provide the user with a better quality of life, emotional security and
function, adhesives for complete dentures are indicated and pointed out as beneficial, as long as they are used properly
(Weidner-Strahl et al., 1984; Adisman et al., 1989; Psillakis et al., 2004).
All evaluated studies observed an improvement in the stability of conventional full dentures when patients used the
adhesive. Bartllet (Bartllet et al., 2013) reported an improvement in diet and patient satisfaction, however, he reported that it
was not possible to identify whether it was the use of the patch or dietary advice. During the eligibility of individuals, patients
who had been using conventional full dentures for some years were chosen, since new dentures may have ideal retention. The
8
opposite was reported in the study by Guimarães (Guimarães et al., 2018), in which they observed that there was no
statistically significant difference between individuals who used adhesive and placebo. However, toothless patients were
selected who received new prostheses and completely adapted to the oral cavity, since this may have been a determining factor
for the result.
It should be noted that the morphology of the residual bone crest can interfere with the results. AlRumaih (AlRumaih
et al., 2018) reported that 80% of the patients had bone crest with more favorable conditions, vertical and horizontal resists,
hamular notch, in the tori, buccal vestibule, having dimensions that facilitate the prosthesis retention, that is, the results can be
alter in individuals with bone crest morphology that presents greater resorption. The same was observed by Kulak (Kulak et
al., 2005) who, when comparing upper and lower residual edges, noticed that there was greater retention in upper prostheses.
All of these results can be explained through the height and shape of the bone crest, because even with the application of the
adhesive, retention and stability can be overloaded through the challenges of conventional full dentures (Kulak et al., 2005;
Bartlett et al., 2013). All of these data can be evaluated through the Index Kapur, so that there is homogeneity in the
individuals chosen for the elaboration of the research.
The percentages of people who did not find it difficult to remove the adhesive from the prostheses were slightly lower
in the study by Uysal (Uysal et al., 1998) (compared to the study by Polyzois (Polyzois et al., 2012)). In addition, in the study
by Uysal (Uysal et al., 1998), Fittydent® was the adhesive with a statistically significant preference, being more retentive and
lasting, just as the study by Polyzois (Polyzois et al., 2012) also indicated participants' preference in favor of Fittydent® in
regarding self-confidence in social activities.
Finally, in both studies, the participants' complaints included 'burning' and 'redness'. The results of the study by Mañes
(Mañes et al., 2011) showed that all adhesives, regardless of the commercial brand involved, significantly improved retention
in relation to the values of the group without adhesive, where the values found for median retention of prostheses in the
absence of adhesive (control) were 58g, while Fittydent® reached 875g and the other tested adhesives, Supercorega® and
Benfix®, produced intermediate forces (491g and 583g respectively).
Ohwada (Ohwada et al., 2020) and Muñoz (Muñoz et al., 2012) carried out a cross-sectional study involving 3 types
of adhesives for prostheses and no adhesives with well-fitted prostheses. They reported greater confidence, comfort and
satisfaction in the group with denture cream adhesive. As these are cross-sectional studies, the same participants were used to
assess conditions with and without denture adhesives, with a quantitative assessment of the use of denture adhesives. Several
studies have classified participants according to the condition of their prostheses or supporting tissues. Uysal (Uysal et al.,
1998) and Koronis (Koronis et al., 2012) used adhesive pads and both studies observed improvement in subjective evaluations
when the prostheses or supporting tissues were in poor condition. Chewing improved significantly in the cream-type adhesive
group, and chewing, retention, comfort and aesthetics significantly improved in the powder-type adhesive group (Ohwada et
al., 2020). Kelsey (Kelsey et al., 1997) and Kulak (Kulak et al., 2005) evaluated cream-type adhesives using old dentures and
both the studies reported improvement in the patient's subjective satisfaction levels in relation to the chewing capacity,
comfort, retention and confidence as a result of the use of denture adhesives.
Prosthesis adhesives are available globally. Although they can be regulated differently in several countries, they are
always available as consumer products. There are some precautions associated with the use of commercially available
adhesives containing zinc, so it is important for consumers to follow the manufacturer's label instructions (Munoz et al., 2012).
Dental professionals should play a key role in providing guidance to all patients with prostheses on use and the proper
application of these products, taking the opportunity to explain to patients that, over time, their prostheses will need to be
replaced (Felton et al., 2011).
9
5. Conclusion
Despite all the positive results achieved by adhesives for conventional full dentures, it is important to note that
patients need to be informed that adhesives should be used sparingly and educated to recognize that excessive use, in quantity
or frequency of application, can be a sign that the dentures are out of order. Thus, patients should be warned that the prostheses
must be replaced with new ones according to the wear and tear of their base.
Although adhesives for dental prostheses do not inevitably improve their function, that is, they are not able to solve
problems related to anatomy or errors in making the prosthesis, they affect the subjective evaluations of patients. The use of
adhesives for conventional full dentures significantly increases their retention and stability and positively affects patient
satisfaction with regard to masticatory capacity, comfort and confidence, as long as they are adequate.
References
Adisman I. K. (1989). The use of denture adhesives as an aid to denture treatment. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 62(6), 711–715.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90598-2
AlRumaih, H. S., AlHelal, A., Baba, N. Z., Goodacre, C. J., Al-Qahtani, A., & Kattadiyil, M. T. (2018). Effects of denture adhesive on the retention of milled
and heat-activated maxillary denture bases: A clinical study. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 120(3), 361-366.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.013
Bartlett, D. W., Maggio, B., Targett, D., Fenlon, M. R., & Thomas, J. (2013). A preliminary investigation into the use of denture adhesives combined with
dietary advice to improve diets in complete denture wearers. Journal of dentistry, 41(2), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.10.012
Coates A. J. (2000). Usage of denture adhesives. Journal of dentistry, 28(2), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00046-9
Felton, D., Cooper, L., Duqum, I., Minsley, G., Guckes, A., Haug, S., Meredith, P., Solie, C., Avery, D., Deal Chandler, N., & American College of
Prosthodontists (2011). Evidence-based guidelines for the care and maintenance of complete dentures: a publication of the American College of
Prosthodontists. Journal of prosthodontics: official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 20 Suppl 1, S1–S12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-
849X.2010.00683.x
Grasso J. E. (2004). Denture adhesives. Dental clinics of North America, 48(3), 721–vii. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2004.04.002
Guimarães, D. M., Marques, É. J., Almagro, G. C. D., Iegami, C. M., Stegun, R. C., Mukai, M. K.. (2018). Effect of Denture Adhesives in New Complete
Dentures During a Function. The Open Dentistry Journal, 12, 969-73. doi: 10.2174/1874210601812010969.
Kanapka J. A. (1984). Bite force as a measure of denture adhesive efficacy. The Compendium of continuing education in dentistry, Suppl 4, S26–S30.
Kelsey, C. C., Lang, B. R., & Wang, R. F. (1997). Examining patients' responses about the effectiveness of five denture adhesive pastes. Journal of the
American Dental Association (1939), 128(11), 1532–1538. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1997.0093
Koronis, S., Pizatos, E., Polyzois, G., & Lagouvardos, P. (2012). Clinical evaluation of three denture cushion adhesives by complete denture wearers.
Gerodontology, 29(2), e161–e169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2010.436.x
Kulak, Y., Ozcan, M., & Arikan, A. (2005). Subjective assessment by patients of the efficiency of two denture adhesive pastes. Journal of prosthodontics:
official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 14(4), 248–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2005.00049.x
Kumar, M. S., & Thombare, R. U. (2011). A comparative analysis of the effect of various denture adhesives available in market on the retentive ability of the
maxillary denture: an in vivo study. Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 11(2), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-011-0067-8
Mañes, J. F., Selva, E. J., De-Barutell, A., & Bouazza, K. (2011). Comparison of the retention strengths of three complete denture adhesives: an in vivo study.
Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 16(1), e132–e136. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.16.e132
Marin, D. O. M., Leite, A. R. P., Paleari, A. G., Rodriguez, L. S., Oliveira Junior, N. M., Pero, A. C., & Compagnoni, M. A. (2014). Effect of a Denture
Adhesive on the Satisfaction and Kinesiographic Parameters of Complete Denture Wearers: A Cross-Over Randomized Clinical Trial. Brazilian Dental
Journal, 25(5), 391-398. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201302409
Munoz, C. A., Gendreau, L., Shanga, G., Magnuszewski, T., Fernandez, P., & Durocher, J. (2012). A clinical study to evaluate denture adhesive use in well-
fitting dentures. Journal of prosthodontics: official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 21(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-
849X.2011.00795.x
Nishi, Y., Nomura, T., Murakami, M., Kawai, Y., Nishimura, M., Kondo, H., Ito, Y., Tsuboi, A., Hong, G., Kimoto, S., Gunji, A., Suzuki, A., Ohwada, G.,
Minakuchi, S., Sato, Y., Suzuki, T., Kimoto, K., Hoshi, N., Saita, M., Yoneyama, Y., … Hamada, T. (2020). Effect of denture adhesives on oral moisture: A
multicenter randomized controlled trial. Journal of prosthodontic research, 64(3), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.08.004
Ohwada, G., Minakuchi, S., Sato, Y., Kondo, H., Nomura, T., Tsuboi, A., Hong, G., Itoh, Y., Kawai, Y., Kimoto, S., Gunji, A., Suzuki, A., Suzuki, T.,
Kimoto, K., Hoshi, N., Saita, M., Yoneyama, Y., Sato, Y., Morokuma, M., Okazaki, J., … Hamada, T. (2020). Subjective Evaluation of Denture Adhesives: A
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. JDR clinical and translational research, 5(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/2380084419837607
10
Papadiochou, S., Emmanouil, I., & Papadiochos, I. (2015). Denture adhesives: a systematic review. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 113(5), 391–397.e2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.11.001
Polyzois, G. L., & de Baat, C. (2012). Attitudes and usage of denture adhesives by complete denture wearers: a survey in Greece and the Netherlands.
Gerodontology, 29(2), e807–e814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2011.00566.x
Pradíes, G., Sanz, I., Evans, O., Martnez, F., & Sanz, M. (2009). Clinical study comparing the efficacy of two denture adhesives in complete denture patients.
The International journal of prosthodontics, 22(4), 361–367.
Psillakis, J. J., Wright, R. F., Grbic, J. T., & Lamster, I. B. (2004). In practice evaluation of a denture adhesive using a gnathometer. Journal of prosthodontics:
official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 13(4), 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04040.x
Spenciere, M. C. R. L., Zavanelli, A. C., Carvalho Júnior, H., Zavanelli, R. A. (2009). Impactof the use of adhesive strip over the satisfaction degree of
institutionalized patients and wearers of convencional complete denture. Rev Odonto UNESP, 38(6):335-40.
Swartz, M. L., Norman, R. D., & Phillips, R. W. (1967). A method for measuring retention of denture adherents: an in vivo study. The Journal of prosthetic
dentistry, 17(5), 456–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(67)90143-6
Torres-Sánchez, C., Montoya-Salazar, V., Torres-Lagares, D., Gutierrez-Pérez, J. L., & Jimenez-Castellanos, E. (2018). Satisfaction in complete denture
wearers with and without adhesives: A randomized, crossover, double-blind clinical trial. Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 10(6), e585–e590.
https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.54871
Uysal, H., Altay, O. T., Alparslan, N., & Bilge, A. (1998). Comparison of four different denture cushion adhesives--a subjective study. Journal of oral
rehabilitation, 25(3), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00220.x
Weidner-Strahl S. K. (1984). Klinische Multicenter-Prüfung verschiedener Indikationen für Prothesen-Haftmittel [Clinical multicenter testing of various
indications for denture adhesives]. Die Quintessenz, 35(8), 1547–1551.
Wilson, M. J., McCord, J. F., Watts, D. C. (1990). Denture adhesives: an in vitro evaluation. J Dent Res, 69:970.
Yankell S. L. (1984). Overview of research and literature on denture adhesives. The Compendium of continuing education in dentistry, Suppl 4, S18–S21.
11

Satisfaction of Users of Full Dentures With Adhesive: A Systematic Review of The Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Satisfaction of Users of Full Dentures With Adhesive: A Systematic Review of The Literature

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Satisfaction of Users of Full Dentures With Adhesive: A Systematic Review of The Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research, Society and Development, v. 10, n.

Satisfaction of users of full dentures with adhesive: A systematic review of the

Received: 05/17/2021 | Reviewed: 05/27/2021 | Accept: 05/31/2021 | Published: 06/13/2021

Keith Murieli Ferreira de Magalhães

Figure 1. Study design PRISMA.

Description of the studies

Table 1. General data on the selected studies.

N.C.: no reported. Source: Authors.

General data from included studies

Satisfaction Based on Adhesive Type

You might also like