Research on Chewing Gum: Questions of Ethics
- 1 São Camilo University, São Paulo, Brazil
Abstract
Guidelines for clinical research and ethics committees are significant contributions to decision made in science and law. But since research methods need to follow the changes and the development of science, guidelines for clinical research have to be continuously revised. Many innovations are perceived for their intended beneficiaries as benefits. Unfortunately, this is not always true. Therefore two issues should be mandatory in discussions of research ethics committees: 1) What constitutes a harmful intervention? 2) What procedures should be established for obtaining data and evaluating their relevance? These questions are too broad and there are no ethical solutions that can leap off a paper. But an example can be worked on. Dental caries is a public health challenge in any country and chewing gum may have an effect with respect to plaque reduction, at least in a short period of time. But sugar chewing gum cannot be used as a positive control in biomedical researches. However, trials referred herein allocated participants for a sugar chewing gum group. Therefore, the aim of this critical review is to emphasize that such a procedure is an example of a conscious disregard for the consideration which is due to trial participants. Were these desirable researches themselves or they had other purposes?
- Bekier, M. (2010).The Ethical Considerations of Medical Experimentation on Human Subjects. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu
- Editorial, O sorriso do chiclete (1994). Revista da Associacao Brasileira de Odontologia.
- Eley, B. M. (1999). Antibacterial Agents in the Control of Supragingival Plaque—A Review. British Dental Journal, 186, 286-296.
- Gardenier, J. S. (2011). Chapter 2: Ethics in Quantitative Professional Practice. In Handbook of Ethics in Quantitative Methodology (pp. 15). New York: Routledge.
- Hossne, W. S., Bontempo, C., & Vieira, S. (2010). Chapter 26: Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: The Brazilian Experience. In Ibero-American Bioethics (pp. 333-341). New York: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9350-0_26
- Imfeld, T. (1999). Chewing Gum-Facts and Fiction: A Review of Gum-Chewing and Oral Health. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine, 10, 405-419. https://doi.org/10.1177/10454411990100030901
- Jornal do Brasil (1984). Fabricante do chiclete Den-den diz que erro é do texto da publicidade.
- Kakodkar, P., & Mulay, S. (2010). Effect of Sugar Free Gum in Addition to Tooth Brushing on Dental Plaque and Interdental Debris. Dental Research Journal, 7, 64-69.
- Katz, J. (1972). Experimentation with Human Beings (pp. 5). New York City: Russel Sage Foundation.
- Lacaz-Netto, R., Macedo, N. L., & Rossetini, S. M. O. (1986). Gomas de Mascar e Placa Bacteriana: Efeitos das Gomas de Mascar Ping-pong, Trident e Den-Den sobre a Formacao da Placa Bacteriana—Estudo Piloto. Revista Gaúcha de Odontologia, 34, 107-110.
- Makinen, K. K., Bennett, C. A., Hujoel, P. P., Isokangas, P.J., Isotupa K. P., Pape Jr., H. R., & Makinen, P. L. (1995). Xylitol Chewing Gums and Caries Rates: A 40-Month Cohort Study. Journal of Dental Research, 74, 1904-1913. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345950740121501
- Mickenautsch, S., Leal, S. C., Yengopal, V., Bezerra, A. C., & Cruvinel, V. (2007). Sugar-Free Chewing Gum and Dental Caries—A Systematic Review. Journal of Applied Oral Science, 15, 83-88. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572007000200002
- Neder, A. C. (1981). Chiclete Anticárie (Nota prévia). Vida Odontológica, 8, 404.
- Nuzzo, R. (2015). Fooling Ourselves. Nature, 526, 182-185. https://doi.org/10.1038/526182a