{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029661016949152543, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006779661016949152, 'mean_word_length': 5.151041666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison between saliva stimulants and a saliva substitute in patients with xerostomia and hyposalivation.

The purpose of this study was to assess patient preference and product efficacy of three non-prescription products for the symptomatic relief of xerostomia. The study group consisted of 80 individuals with a complaint of chronic (> six months) xerostomia and an unstimulated salivary flow rate of < 0.1 mL/min. The three products--a sorbitol/xylitol-sweetened chewing gum, a sorbitol-sweetened sour lemon lozenge, and a sorbitol/xylitol-sweetened artificial saliva substitute spray--were assigned in a permuted block randomization scheme. Each product was used for two weeks with an interval of one week between trials. The study did not identify any product to be statistically significant in terms of patient preference. Kruskal-Wallis testing revealed no statistical significance (P > 0.589) among the products. No product demonstrated marked efficacy in stimulating salivary output. ANOVA analysis followed by Tukey HSD testing revealed no significant difference between the baseline paraffin-stimulated mean flow rate and the gum- and lozenge-stimulated flow rates.