Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Drugs in R&D
Published in: Drugs in R&D 1/2008

01-01-2008 | Original Research Article

Efficacy of a Mucoadhesive Patch Compared with an Oral Solution for Treatment of Aphthous Stomatitis

Authors: Avner Shemer, Boaz Amichai, Henri Trau, Nir Nathansohn, Boaz Mizrahi, Prof. Abraham J. Domb

Published in: Drugs in R&D | Issue 1/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a mucoadhesive patch compared with a pain-relieving oral solution for the treatment of aphthous stomatitis.
Methods: Patients with active aphthous stomatitis were randomly treated either once a day with a mucoadhesive patch containing citrus oil and magnesium salts (n = 26) or three times a day with an oral solution containing benzocaine and compound benzoin tincture (n = 22). All patients were instructed to apply the medication until pain had resolved, and completed a questionnaire detailing multiple clinical parameters followed by an evaluation of the treatment.
Results: The mucoadhesive patch was found to be more effective than the oral solution in terms of healing time (mean ± SD: 36.0 ± 22.8 hours vs 134.7 ± 57.7, p < 0.001) and pain intensity after 12 and 24 hours (3.7 ± 2.8 vs 6.3 ± 2.6, p = 0.003, and 2.3 ± 2.7 vs 5.7 ± 2.5, p < 0.001, respectively). Local adverse effects 1 hour after treatment were significantly (p < 0.01) less frequent among the mucoadhesive patch patients compared with the oral solution patients.
Conclusions: The mucoadhesive patch was found to be significantly more effective and better tolerated than the oral solution in the treatment of aphthous stomatitis.
Footnotes
1
The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.
 
Literature
1.
2.
Stone OJ. Aphthous stomatitis (canker sores): a consequence of high oral submucosal viscosity (the role of extracellular-matrix and the possible role of lectins). Med Hypotheses 1991; 36 (4): 341–4CrossRef
3.
Zunt SL. Recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Dermatol Clin 2003 Jan; 21 (1): 33–39CrossRef
4.
Woodley J. Bioadhesion: new possibilities for drug administration? Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40 (2): 77–84CrossRef
5.
Plemons JM, Rees TD, Binnie WH, et al. Evaluation of acemannan in the treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Wounds 1994; 6: 40–5
6.
Ship JA, Chavez EM, Doerr PA, et al. Recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Quintessence Int 2000; 31 (2): 95–112PubMed
7.
Vincent SD, Lilly GE. Clinical, historic, and therapeutic features of aphthous stomatitis: literature review and open clinical trial employing steroids. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1992; 74: 79–86CrossRef
8.
Pedersen A. Psychologic stress and recurrent aphthous ulceration. J Oral Pathol Med 1989; 18 (2): 119–22CrossRef
9.
Nolan A, Lamey PJ, Milligan KA, et al. Recurrent aphthous ulceration and food sensitivity. J Oral Pathol Med 1991; 20 (10): 473–5CrossRef
10.
Brokstad B, Barkvoll P. The effect of two toothpaste detergents on the frequency of recurrent aphthous ulcers. Acta Odontol Scand 1996; 54 (3): 150–3CrossRef
11.
Natah SS, Hayrinen-Immonen R, Hietanen J, et al. Immunolocalization of tumor necrosis factor-alpha expressing cells in recurrent aphthous ulcer lesions (RAU). J Oral Pathol Med 2000; 29 (1): 19–25CrossRef
12.
Porter SR, Hegarty A, Kaliakatsou F, et al. Recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Clin Dermatol 2000; 18 (5): 569–78CrossRef
13.
Khandwala A, VanInwegen RG, Alfano MC. 5% amlexanox oral paste, a new treatment for recurrent minor aphthous ulcers: 1. Clinical demonstration of acceleration of healing and resolution of pain. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997; 83 (2): 222–30CrossRef
14.
Nagai T, Machida Y. Buccal delivery systems using hydrogels. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 1993; 11 (1–2): 179–91CrossRef
15.
Shojaei AH, Paulson J, Honary S. Evaluation of poly(acrylic acid-co-ethylhexyl acrylate) films for mucoadhesive transbuc-cal drug delivery: factors affecting the force of mucoadhesion. J Control Release 2000; 67 (2–3): 223–32CrossRef
16.
Mizrahi B, Golenser J, Wolnerman JS, et al. Adhesive tablet effective for treating canker sores in humans. J Pharm Sci 2004; 93 (12): 2927–35CrossRef
17.
Mizrahi B, Shapira L, Domb AJ, et al. Citrus oil and MgCl2 as antibacterial and anti-inflammatory agents. J Periodont 2006; 77 (6): 963–8CrossRef
18.
Houri-Haddad Y, Soskolne WA, Halabi A, et al. Repeat bacterial challenge in a subcutaneous chamber model results in augmented tumour necrosis factor-alpha and interferon-gamma response, and suppression of interleukin-10. Immunology 2000; 99 (2): 215–20CrossRef
19.
Cianciola JA, Algieri ML, Bush P, et al. Duration and intensity of anesthetic effect produced by Canker Sore Medications. J Clin Dentistry 1997; 8 (4): 100–2
20.
Nagai T, Machida Y. Advances in drug delivery: mucosal adhesive dosage forms. Pharm Internat 1985; 8: 196–200
21.
Kutcher MJ, Ludlow JB, Samuelson AD, et al. Evaluation of a bioadhesive device for the management of aphthous ulcers. J Am Dent Assoc 2001; 132 (3): 368–76CrossRef
22.
Bravo-Osuna I, Vauthier C, Farabollini A, et al. Mucoadhesion mechanism of chitosan and thiolated chitosan-poly(isobutyl cyanoacrylate) core-shell nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2007; 28 (13): 2233–43CrossRef
23.
Bernkop-Schnurch A, Guggi D, Pinter Y. Thiolated chitosans: development and in vitro evaluation of a mucoadhesive, permeation enhancing oral drug delivery system. J Control Release 2004; 94 (1): 177–86CrossRef
24.
Bernkop-Schnurch A, Kast CE. Chemically modified chitosans as enzyme inhibitors. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2001; 52 (2): 127–37CrossRef
25.
Stoy PJ. The use of topical application in the treatment of inflammatory conditions of the oral mucosa. Dent Practice 1966; 16: 444–7
26.
Browne RM, Fox EC, Anderson RJ. Topical triamcinolone in recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Lancet 1968; 16: 565–7CrossRef
27.
Dale RA, Berrong JM, Sandoval VA, et al. The use of ORA 5 on recurrent aphthous ulcers. Gen Dent 1989; Nov–Dec: 504–7
28.
Natah SS, Konttinen YT, Enattah NS, et al. Recurrent aphthous ulcers today: a review of the growing knowledge. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 33 (3): 221–34CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Efficacy of a Mucoadhesive Patch Compared with an Oral Solution for Treatment of Aphthous Stomatitis
Authors
Avner Shemer
Boaz Amichai
Henri Trau
Nir Nathansohn
Boaz Mizrahi
Prof. Abraham J. Domb
Publication date
01-01-2008
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Drugs in R&D / Issue 1/2008
Print ISSN: 1174-5886
Electronic ISSN: 1179-6901
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00126839-200809010-00003