Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Research Protocols

Date Submitted: May 27, 2025
Open Peer Review Period: May 27, 2025 - Jul 22, 2025
Date Accepted: Dec 17, 2025
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Comparing the Effectiveness of Atropine Sulfate and Acacia Catechu in Reducing Salivary Secretion During Dental Procedures: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Pophali M

Comparing the Effectiveness of Atropine Sulfate and Acacia Catechu in Reducing Salivary Secretion During Dental Procedures: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

JMIR Res Protoc 2026;15:e78119

DOI: 10.2196/78119

PMID: 43024802

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

“A Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Atropine Sulphate and Acacia Catechu in Reducing Salivary Secretion during Dental Procedures.”

  • Mrunmayee Pophali

ABSTRACT

Background:

Sialorrhea, or excessive salivation, can be a major problem during a number of dental operations. It can impair vision, increase chair time, and perhaps jeopardize the effectiveness of treatments. To treat this illness, pharmacological treatments such as atropine sulphate are frequently employed. However, there hasn't been much research done on natural substitutes like Acacia catechu for this function.

Objective:

To compare and evaluate the effectiveness of Atropine sulphate and Acacia catechu in reducing salivary secretion in patients undergoing restorative dental procedures.

Methods:

A randomized controlled trial will be conducted involving 160 participants undergoing restorative dental treatments. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either Atropine Sulphate or Acacia Catechu. Salivary flow will be measured pre- and post-intervention. Statistical analysis will be performed using paired t-tests and ANOVA. This protocol outlines the methodology and planned analyses.

Results:

It is anticipated that both interventions will reduce salivary flow, with atropine sulphate demonstrating greater efficacy but more side effects, and Acacia catechu offering a better side-effect profile and higher patient acceptability.

Conclusions:

The trial will provide comparative evidence on the efficacy and safety of a pharmacological and a natural anticholinergic agent. If Acacia catechu proves effective, it may offer a viable, better-tolerated alternative for salivary control in clinical dental settings. Clinical Trial: This study has been submitted to the Clinical Trials Registry – India (CTRI) and is currently under review (Acknowledgment Number: REF/2025/04/104969). The trial will be updated with the final registration number once approved.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Pophali M

Comparing the Effectiveness of Atropine Sulfate and Acacia Catechu in Reducing Salivary Secretion During Dental Procedures: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

JMIR Res Protoc 2026;15:e78119

DOI: 10.2196/78119

PMID: 43024802

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.