A new aqueous lubricant technology designed to help people suffering from dry mouth is between four and five times more effective than existing commercially available products, according to laboratory tests.
Developed by scientists at the University of Leeds, the saliva substitute is described as comparable to natural saliva in the way it moisturizes the mouth and acts as a lubricant when food is chewed.
Under a powerful microscope, the molecules of the substance – known as microgels – appear as a network or sponge-like mesh that attaches to the surface of the mouth. Surrounding the microgel is a polysaccharide-based hydrogel that traps water. This dual function will keep the mouth hydrated for longer.
Professor Anwesha Sarkar, who led the development of the saliva substitute, said: “Our laboratory benchmarking reveals that this substance will have a longer duration of action.
“The problem with many of the existing commercial products is that they are only effective for short periods because they do not bind to the surface of the mouth, with people having to repeat the substance frequently, sometimes while talking or while eating.
“This affects people’s quality of life.”
Results from the laboratory evaluation – “Comparative evaluation of an aqueous microgel-enhanced hydrogel-based lubricant versus commercial saliva substitutes” – are reported today (Monday, November 20) in the journal Scientific Reports.
The performance of the newly developed substance compared to existing products is due to a process called adsorption. Adsorption is the ability of a molecule to bind to something, in this case the surface of the inside of the mouth.
Reference results
The new microgel comes in two forms: one made with dairy protein and the other a vegan version that uses potato protein.
The new substance was compared with eight commercially available saliva substitutes, including the Boots brand product – Biotene. Oralieve? Saliveze? and Glandosane. All benchmarking was done in a laboratory on an artificial tongue-like surface and did not involve humans.
Tests revealed that the Leeds product had a lower level of desorption – the opposite of adsorption – that is, how much lubricant was lost from the surface of the synthetic tongue.
With commercially available products, 23% to 58% percent of the oil was lost. With the saliva substitute developed in Leeds, the figure was just 7%. The dairy version slightly outperformed the vegan version.
The test results provide a strong proof of concept that our material is likely to be more effective under real-world conditions and could provide up to five times more relief than existing products.
The results of the benchmarking show favorable results in three main areas. Our microgel provides high hydration, bonds strongly to oral surfaces and is an effective lubricant, making it more comfortable for people to eat and talk.”
Dr Olivia Pabois, a researcher at Leeds and first author of the paper
The substances used in the production of the saliva substitute – diary and vegetable proteins and carbohydrates – are non-toxic to humans and non-caloric.
Although testing of the new product only involved laboratory analysis, the scientific team believes that the results will be replicated in human trials.
The study authors are trying to translate lubricant technology into commercially available products to improve the quality of life of people dealing with debilitating dry mouth conditions.
Xerostomia – healthcare burden
Dry mouth, or xerostomia, to give it its medical name, is a common condition that affects about one in ten of the population and is prevalent among the elderly and people who have undergone cancer treatment or need to take a combination of medications.
In severe cases, dry mouth results in people having difficulty swallowing and leads to malnutrition and dental problems, which increase the burden on health care systems.
Source:
Journal Reference:
Pabois, O., et al. (2023). Comparative evaluation of an aqueous microgel-enhanced hydrogel-based lubricant versus commercial saliva substitutes. Scientific Reports. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46108-w.
