Medi Friends Deluxe Tape Adult Diapers Review

 *For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology

 

Summary

The Medi Friends Deluxe Tape Adult Diaper is a plastic-backed Korean diaper that can be found in certain Korean retailers. It’s produced by a manufacturer named “Clean Country” in Korea, which also produces other sanitary and paper products. In terms of sizing it’s relatively limited with only an L and XL size. However, in reality the large would be equivalent to a medium in most countries and for myself, having a typical medium fit, I found the large worked just fine. Key features advertised by this diaper include the absorption layer, elastic design and dual moisture channels that run down the padding. You’re unlikely to find this diaper outside Korea as it seems to be marketed exclusively within the country.

In terms of performance, I found it consistently managed a single wetting under any conditions. I never had issues with leaks or damage to the backsheet/topsheet. It has a quality build and the design makes it really easy to get a snug fit. However, it’s hardly the most comfortable diaper I’ve tested, particularly when wet. When wet it can be susceptible to surface dampness and pressout. Still, for the price point it provides a great degree of value and with a good booster it would be even better. I’d certainly recommend giving it a try if you happen to be in Korea.

Key Features:

• Plastic backsheet
• Standing inner leak guards
• Wetness indicator
• Tape landing zone
• Repositionable fasteners
• Rear waistband
  

Pros:

• Highly durable
  
• Very easy to get a snug fit
  
• Consistent absorbency
  

Cons:

• Surface dampness
  
• Limited availability
• Limited sizing options

 

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the large-sized Medi Friends Deluxe Tape Adult Diaper. However, other available sizes are listed below:

Packaging

Brand: Medi Friends Deluxe
Manufacturer: Clean Country Co., Ltd
Origin: Korea
Units Per Bag: 10
Cost Per Unit: $
Dimensions (L x W x H): 23 cm (9.1") x 16 cm (6.3") x 25 cm (9.8")
Weight: 0.95 kg (2.1 lbs)
Available Sizes: L,XL
Advertised Absorbency: Quadruple

1.1 Medi Friends Deluxe Tape Adult Diaper Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Plastic (poly)
Wetness Indicator: Yes
Standing Inner Leak Guards: Yes
Leg Gathers: Yes
Product Style: Tab-Style Brief
Refastenable Tabs: Yes
Number of Tapes: 2
Repositionable Tabs: Yes
Outer Color: White (reddish-brown numbered landing zone + blue drops down middle)
Inner Color: White
Front Waistband: No
Rear Waistband: Yes
Folded Thickness: 2.50 cm (0.98")
Folded Length: 24 cm (9.5")
Dry Weight: 100 g (3.5 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 81.5 cm (32.1") x 63 cm (24.8") x 29 cm (11.4") x 60 cm (23.6")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 64 cm (25.2") x 27 cm (10.6") x 17 cm (6.7") x 33 cm (13")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 5 cm (2") x 12 cm (4.7") x 8 cm (3.2") x 17 cm (6.7")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1480 cm² (229 in²)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 4 cm (1.6") x 11 cm (4.3")
Tape (W x L): 2 cm (0.8") x 4 cm (1.6")

1.2 Medi Friends Deluxe Tape Adult Diaper

Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 695 ml (24.5 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 700 ml (24.7 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (94 s, 63 s, 84 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 4 cm (1.6")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 77%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.70 ml / cm² (0.16 oz / in²)
Press Out Volume: 5 ml (0.18 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 3

During the lab test, the Medi Friends diaper showed obvious surface dampness from the first wetting and a lot of surface dampness after the second wetting. The presence of surface dampness was also confirmed during real world testing and I’d say this is one of the diapers where you’re likely to notice surface dampness on the first wetting. I rank it about the same as the Leway diaper in this regard.

 

2.1 Wet vs Dry Diaper After Capacity Test

2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test

"Real World" Absorbency Tests

Posture Tests

Standing-Sitting

Total Absorbed Volume: 625 ml (22.1 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 1 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 81%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.42 ml / cm² (0.10 oz / in²)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 5
The Medi Friends Deluxe diaper performed reasonably when tested while standing and sitting. The first wetting while standing was easily absorbed and distributed through the padding. The moisture briefly pooled around the mid padding with much of the front and rear padding remaining dry. After a short while the moisture did wick through into the other padding and it didn’t feel particularly damp. There was no hint of leakage upon sitting shortly after nor any obvious pressout moisture. On the second wetting while seated, moisture pushed up the front and there was noticeable pooling above the crotch. However, nothing made it past the leak guards and into the wings so it stayed within the padding. Eventually the pooling subsided and the moisture made it down into the mid-padding where it still felt quite saturated. Surprisingly there weren’t any leaks below the diaper as the moisture made it back down and slowly wicked backward. However, after a more extended period of sitting I noticed two distinctive leaks through the rear leg gathers even though there was still a decent area of dry rear padding. The leaks were enough to leave a substantial mark, so I ended the test at that. I do feel this diaper should be safe for absorbing at least one wetting during daily usage, but I wouldn’t count on it absorbing more than that because moisture tends to end up in the middle padding where it’s susceptible to pressout.

Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 730 ml (24.8 oz)
Total Wettings: 2
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 94%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.49 ml / cm² (0.11 oz / in²)

Lying Down Rating: 6

The Medi Friend Deluxe diaper performed decently when tested while lying down. In the first wetting there was initially a bit of pooling but it was completely absorbed after a short while and distributed through the rear padding. By the time it was fully absorbed the rear padding was mostly wet but there was still a large area of dry padding at the front since the looser fit resulted in most moisture moving downward below the crotch. The diaper felt a little damp at this point, but not to the point of discomfort and there were no signs of any leaks. The second wetting was clearly going to leak given much of the padding was wet after the first wetting. Initially the leak guards did a great job at keeping the pooling contained within the structure so it didn’t leak immediately but there was a substantial pool of moisture that could never be absorbed over the mid-padding and eventually a lot of it made it through the rear leg gathers resulting in a substantial leak. There was also a significant, but smaller, leak out below the rear waistband. Given these findings, I believe the Medi Friend Deluxe will generally absorb a single wetting while lying down but I wouldn’t have confidence in it absorbing any more than that. Its absorbency seems quite tuned to a single wetting level of protection.

2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left)

Daily Wear and Bedwetting

The Medi Friends Deluxe Tape diaper proved surprisingly robust during testing. Overall absorbency wasn’t particularly high, with just enough to comfortably absorb a large single wetting. However, it was remarkably consistent in how well it prevented leaks at this level, without even so much as minor leakage when wet while sitting or lying down. I attribute this to the diaper’s very effective leak barriers and snug fitting design. The padding itself is susceptible to surface dampness and pressout moisture, even after a single wetting, but at least you can have confidence that it won’t leak. Notably, this diaper also has two distinctive moisture channel groves running down the padding, which help it with wicking. Were it more absorbent, it could easily rank among the premium diapers. As it is, I find it can feel a bit damp when wet and that can detract from comfort. From my testing I can say I’d have confidence with this diaper for daily wear or bedwetting as long as there’s only a single wetting. I found its design to be highly durable and I feel it will be fine with exercise and active wear, though I’d be a bit more worried about padding clumping or tearing when wet so you’d want to change relatively quickly if active. I never had any issues with the tapes moving and if anything they were a bit too adhesive and could be difficult to remove (similar to what I experience with the NorthShore MegaMax). Another interesting aspect of this diaper is that the plastic backsheet has small indentations similar to the Leway diaper, but again it’s completely moisture impermeable. Aside from that, I found it very easy to fit consistently, partly because the landing zone has patterns to repeat the same good fit and partly because it naturally has a very snug fitting design that doesn’t require much adjustment. It’s not the cheapest diaper on the market, but cheaper than most North American or European diapers you’d find so it provides a good amount of quality for the price. If you’re in Korea, I’d highly recommend giving it a try as it performed the best of those I’ve tested so far, above the Saehan Gumbi or Leway diapers.

Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 9

I feel the Medi Friends diaper will manage bowel incontinence a little better than the Leway diaper and rank it among the better diapers in this category. It has a plastic backsheet with a generous amount of rear padding, strong elastic leg barriers and a rear waistband. All these features seem geared for effective containment. The only reason I don’t give it a perfect score is because the padding can be susceptible to surface dampness, where I feel a perfect diaper for the job should be highly resistant to surface dampness as well as providing strong containment barriers.

Wear & Tear Tests

Fitting

The Medi Friends Deluxe Tape diaper features a plastic backsheet with a large tape landing zone at the front. The fasteners use an adhesive tape material and are high quality and have a very strong grip when fastened. Interestingly, the tapes have the two tone pattern you might expect for stacked double-tapes like the Tranquility ATN, but there is only a single tape per fastener in this diaper. The tapes can be repositioned multiple times for adjustment after the initial application. The plastic in this diaper is textured and resembles other Korean diapers like the Leway diapers. It has a rear-waistband, which helps with fit. Meanwhile, the sizing also seems to match other Korean diapers, with the large being similar to what you’d typically expect from a medium in terms of fit, although this brand seems to start at large with no medium size in the lineup.

3.1 Medi Friends Deluxe Tape Fastener

 

Ease-of-Use Rating: 9

The Medi Friends Deluxe Tape diaper is highly user friendly. I found it very easy to get a snug fit with this diaper as the elastic leg gathers and waistband wrap the wearer’s body when applied. It’s also easy to apply the tapes to the landing zone and the landing zone numbering makes it easy to reproduce a good fit once you’ve found the fit that works best. This diaper also features a wetness indicator of blue dots down the middle that fade when wet, making it a good choice for care environments as well. The only thing that might make this diaper a bit more difficult to use is that the tapes are almost too adhesive. I found it can be difficult to remove the tape at times to adjust it and if you pull the tape too hard it can result in damage.

3.2 Medi Friends Deluxe Tape Diapers Fit

 

Comfort

Comfort Rating (dry): 8

I put the Medi Friends Deluxe diaper ahead of the similar Leway diaper when it comes to dry comfort. I found the fit on this diaper to be outstanding with the rear waistband really helping to keep it snug. The padding and backsheet are quite soft, though not the softest on the market. Likewise, this diaper is good with heat dissipation, but not quite among the best either. The padding in this diaper, while fairly thin, proved more durable than the Leway diaper. I never had any issues with tapes coming loose or dry sagging in this diaper.

Comfort Rating (wet): 6

The Medi Friends diaper’s padding felt noticeably damp when wet and I wouldn’t rank it among the higher rated diapers for wet comfort. However, surface dampness was really the only issue I noticed in terms of discomfort. Otherwise the padding itself held together without obvious clumping or tearing and condition was little changed from the dry state. The tapes held up incredibly well so there was no obvious dip or sagging with the added weight of the wet diaper, though the looseness of the padding does mean the padding will sit a little lower when wet. I didn’t find this diaper’s plastic backsheet to be as breathable as others like the Dr P. and thus the lower rating.

3.3 Medi Friends Deluxe Tape Adult Diapers Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 8.9% (topsheet), 12.7% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 5 shakes to deterioration

Durability Rating (dry): 8
The Medi Friends Deluxe has a remarkably durable design. During dry durability testing I didn’t notice any sort of shifting in the fit and the tapes held up strongly with multiple refastenings. If anything the tapes are probably a little too strong as I feel that removing them too quickly could risk damaging them, but I didn’t count that as too big a factor in terms of dry durability. Other than that, the padding in this diaper was surprisingly durable given its relatively thin structure. After the extended test there wasn’t any obvious clumping or tearing with most of the deterioration in non-core padding where the wider padding collapsed inward and on the outer parts of the wings. As far as dry durability goes this diaper may perform surprisingly well for active wear when absorbency is sufficient.

Durability Rating (wet): 7

The Medi Friends diaper had wet durability roughly equivalent to its dry durability with limited padding deterioration, mostly at the edges. The core padding didn’t show any signs of clumping or obvious tearing. Otherwise, the tapes held remarkably well and were completely unmoved by the added weight of the wet diaper during testing. I feel the structure of this diaper will hold up well to active wear or even more intensive exercises, but the padding still feels a bit more susceptible to coming apart than the more durable diapers on the market like the Drylife SlipSuper.

3.4 Medi Friends Deluxe Tape Adult Diaper Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests

Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4 cm (1.6"), 5 cm (2")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 6 cm (2.4"), 5 cm (2")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 9 cm (3.5"), 7.5cm (3")

Profile Discretion Rating: 7

This diaper has a notable rise above the waistline, but otherwise keeps quite snug to the wearer’s body. I think with some care you could easily cover it under most outfits, but it will show through tighter fitting clothing. If not worn under meshpants or regular underwear there may be a slight bulge at the crotch and rear of the diaper where the backsheet allows a bit more of a gap. I rank it similar to the Attends Care Poly Briefs in this regard.

4.1 Medi Friends Deluxe Tape Adult Diapers Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Medi Friends Deluxe Tape Adult Diapers Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

 

Noise

Noise Rating: 6

I noticed a slight crinkling noise from the Medi Friends Deluxe diaper when walking, sitting or standing up. It wasn’t super obvious and far less than you’d get from something like the Forsite Under the Sea, but clearly a noise you’d get from a diaper. I feel that at this level you could mostly cover it up with use of meshpants or underwear. I suspect a lot of the noise is actually coming from the thicker padding in the landing zone.

4.3 Medi Friends Deluxe Tape Noise Profile

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 8
I rank the Medi Friends Deluxe diaper highly in terms of odor reduction. A large part of this comes from how effective the structure is at containment. I can’t say I noticed odors very often while testing this diaper and it does seem to have some design elements to help with that. However, it’s also quite susceptible to pressout and surface dampness, which can contribute to the formation of odors. Overall, I feel the structure still gives it a slight edge over many other diapers on the market in this regard.

Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Incontinence Pad Review

 *For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology

 

Summary

As the third part of our series covering incontinence pads, I’ll be reviewing the Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum. Like the Depend with its Depend for Men Guard, Tena was also an early mover in introducing male-specific incontinence pads to the market and is quite competitive with the two brands often appearing alongside one another in retailers. Both product lines feature more absorbent “guards” and lower absorbency “shields” for managing different levels of leakage. Having reviewed several different Tena diaper products, including the Tena Slip Active Fit Maxi and Tena Flex among others, I was interested to see how their incontinence pad products might perform in comparison.

Notably, these guards come individually packaged in a black plastic wrapper but have a cloth-like backsheet. The fastener follows the standard incontinence pad design with a single adhesive tape fastener down the middle and works with close-fitting underwear like briefs or boxer-briefs. I found the Tena pad to be considerably thinner than the Depend for Men or Lindor 5D pads, however, it also had a larger area of coverage and a surprisingly high level of absorbency. Like most other male guards it won’t work for bedwetting and should only really be used for daily sitting/standing usage because the bottom padding narrows and won’t capture moisture effectively when you’re lying down. It’s also only really suited to a light-moderate level of incontinence and won’t handle significant surges of moisture, which would be better handled with diapers or protective underwear. In terms of pricing, these often come out cheaper than the less absorbent Tena Shields, and given how discreet these are, some may choose them even when dealing with minor drops and dribbles instead of the more expensive shields. I was particularly impressed with the width of padding coverage and had full confidence that no matter how I shifted the Tena Guard would capture every drip. I’d recommend them for those dealing with light-moderate daily drips and dribbles.

Key Features:

• Cloth-like backsheet
• Wide triangular padding
  
• Adhesive tape fastener down the middle

Pros:

• Compact and easy to apply
• Great for light incontinence
  
• Very comfortable/discreet
• Low unit price

Cons:

• Little absorbency
• Not suitable for overnight wear
• Won’t work for bowel incontinence
  

Product Details

The Tena Men Absorbent Maximum Guard comes in a one-size fits all. Consequently no other sizes are listed here and this review should be universally applicable for the product line.

Packaging

Brand: Tena
Manufacturer: Essity HMS North America Inc.
Origin: Slovakia
Units Per Bag: 48
Cost Per Unit: $
Dimensions (L x W x H): 28 cm (11") x 10 cm (3.9") x 14 cm (5.5")
Weight: 0.83 kg (1.8 lbs)
Advertised Absorbency: Maximum

1.1 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Packaging

Pad

Backsheet: Cloth-like (non-woven)
Wetness Indicator: No
Standing Inner Leak Guards: No
Leg Gathers: No
Product Style: Male Guard
Refastenable Tabs: No
Number of Tapes: 1
Repositionable Tabs: No
Outer Color: Gray
Inner Color: White (blue dot pattern)
Folded Thickness: 1.2 cm (0.47")
Folded Length: 12 cm (4.7")
Dry Weight: 20 g (0.71 oz)
Fragrance: No
Pad Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 25.5 cm (10") x 22 cm (8.7") x 14 cm (5.5") x 8 cm (3.2")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Triangular, Triangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 24 cm (9.5") x 20 cm (7.9") x 12 cm (4.7") x 6 cm (2.4")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 4 cm (1.6") x 13 cm (5.1") x -3.0 cm (-1.2") x 0 cm (0")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Triangular, Triangular
Total Padding Area: 392 cm² (61 in²)
Tape (W x L): 3 cm (1.2") x 25 cm (9.8")

1.2 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Pad

Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 192 ml (6.8 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 195 ml (6.9 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (17 s, 15 s, 29 s, 25 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 3 cm (1.2")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 100%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.49 ml / cm² (0.11 oz / in²)
Press Out Volume: 3 ml (0.11 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 8

During the lab test the Tena Men demonstrated strong resistance to surface dampness. There was no sign of dampness after the first wetting and almost none on the second or third wetting. It wasn’t until the 4th wetting that there was anything substantial. This still falls short of the Lindor 5D, but for a product with such thin padding it was pretty remarkable. In real world wear I didn’t find surface dampness to be too much of an issue when wet for the relatively low volumes of moisture the pad should handle.

2.1 Wet vs Dry Pad After Capacity Test

 

2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test

"Real World" Absorbency Tests

Posture Tests

Standing-Sitting

Total Absorbed Volume: 230 ml (8.1 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing)
Leaked After Sitting: Yes
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 92%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.59 ml / cm² (0.13 oz / in²)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 1 (Male Guard Adjusted: 8)
To better assess the maximum capacity before leakage in the Tena Guard I did a test to push it to the point of leakage when standing with a regular wetting. As I did before when the Depend and Lindor 5D guards, I combined it with the Carer M67 underwear to better assess feasibility as a combined protection. It was clearly not going to absorb the full wetting but how far it got could be a good performance indicator. On the wetting while standing the padding quickly filled but it wasn’t particularly noticeable and I couldn’t tell at what point that any moisture from the padding leaked into the underwear. At some point the M67 started leaking a bit, but it was much later than I expected and I suspect this combination might be fine for a moderate wetting. Of course, it was nowhere near as absorbent as the Lindor 5D, but surprisingly the Tena Guard absorbed a significant amount more than the Depend Guard even with a thinner padding. There was also a small amount of unused padding at the end of the test, but most of the padding was consumed, suggesting a decent amount of wicking. This pad will clearly handle any light leakage during daily wear and possibly some degree of moderate leakage.

Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 130 ml (4.6 oz)
Total Wettings: 1
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 50%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.38 ml / cm² (0.09 oz / in²)

Lying Down Rating: 1 (Male Guard Adjusted:7)

The Tena Guard performed substantially worse when tested while lying down and clearly isn’t designed for overnight leakage. Once again, it was combined with the Carer M67 to assess performance as combined protection. During the wetting the Tena Guard quickly demonstrated pooling which rapidly leaked into the underlying Carer padding. Yet, there was still a large amount of dry padding at the top of the pad so it was obviously far from its theoretical capacity. It ended up performing a little better than the Depend Guard, but not enough that I’d expect to have a significantly different result. The primary benefit in this underwear is that the wide range of padding could capture moisture when lying at various angles vs the typical rectangular padding. If you’re looking for an overnight pad there are clearly better products on the market.

2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left)

Daily Wear and Bedwetting

I have to admit, I was initially a bit sceptical of the Tena Guard at first glance. This pad is quite thin and doesn’t feature leg gathers like the Depend Guard or Standing Inner Leak Guards like the Lindor 5D pad. Instead it’s shaped as a large triangle with flat edges and wings that fold inward. Like most other incontinence pads this pad is fastened to the wearer’s underwear using an absorbent tape that runs down the middle. Also, in line with other male guards, the Tena Guard is really only meant for light incontinence and will not handle full wettings, so it is not suitable for managing bedwetting. The shape having a very narrow area below the crotch also means it probably wouldn’t be suitable for those with light overnight incontinence like dribbling. This is very much a pad to be used in daily wear for those with regular drips and dribbles. While it lacks some of the leak guard features of other incontinence pads I feel it more than makes up for that by having a very large area of padding coverage. This will give you a far higher degree of confidence in avoiding leaks since it covers most of the front of your underwear with padded area; in fact I found the pad even extended beyond my regular brief-style underwear. Because of the extensive coverage it may be better suited to boxer-brief style underwear, though it should work fine for regular brief-style as well. In terms of absorbency I found this pad to be a step above the Depend Guard, but not quite at the level of the Lindor 5D. It was more than sufficient for my light daily drips and dribbles, probably overkill if anything but I did appreciate the extensive padding coverage as I never had any drips go around the pad (it caught everything). In terms of durability, the Tena Guard is top notch and highly resistant to wear and tear. Also it is about as discreet as you could possibly get for such a product. Because of the way it wrapped my underwear I never noticed any hint of it when out and about, barely felt it in fact. I never heard a hint of noise from it at any time during testing too. If you need a well-rounded male light-moderate incontinence pad for daily usage I’d highly recommend giving the Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum a try.

Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 0 (N/A)

This product is not designed for use with bowel incontinence.

Wear & Tear Tests

Fitting

The Tena Guard has a triangular shape with the padding getting wider the further up you go and narrow as it gets between the legs. This design is rather unique as most incontinence pads have a rectangular shape to them. The wings of the triangle actually have a folded shape for storage and I also found this makes it better wrap the wearer. This pad also has a cloth-like backsheet, which is also relatively rare for incontinence pads. However, the fastener is pretty standard with a single adhesive tape running down the middle that can be fastened to the wearer’s underwear after removing the paper cover.

3.1 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Fastener

 

Ease-of-Use Rating: 9

Tena Men Guards are quite user friendly. Each pad is individually wrapped in a black plastic wrapping for convenient storage. When you’re ready to apply it you can pull apart the seam at the back of the plastic wrapping. The pad has a single vertical fold and the wings are folded inward giving it an initially rectangular look. It’s generally easy to apply this pad, but the width can make it a bit more of a challenge to get a perfect fit. I found with regular brief-style underwear the padding may actually extend past the underwear in spots due to the width, so it may be better suited for wear with boxer-brief style underwear or meshpants. In any case it won’t work with loose boxer underwear like any other incontinence pad. The pad has a snug fit in the wearer’s underwear and because it was pre-folded it can actually create a bit of a wrapping. Other than that, I found the adhesive worked well and didn’t lose adhesiveness over time, nor was it difficult to remove when it came time to finally change. The paper covering the tape also has helpful instructions to assist with orientation for those unfamiliar with it. I was never quite sure how low or high to place the pad in my underwear for ideal fit, but it’s large enough that I feel that placement may be less important than other products.

3.2 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Fit

 

Comfort

Comfort Rating (dry): 10

I rank the Tena Guard right up there with the Lindor 5D when it comes to dry comfort. The padding is exceptionally soft and has a clear edge over the Depend Guard. It has a much wider fit but also thinner and less rigid padding than the Depend Guard, which I feel makes it more skin friendly. I also feel the wider coverage was another major benefit in the Tena Guard; it has wide wings and no rough edges. I barely noticed it all when I was wearing it as it just blended into my regular underwear. This was particularly true when first applied, though like the Depend Guard some parts become more noticeable over time. My only real issue was that the bottom of the pad is a bit narrow and can shift in a way that causes some skin irritation. It was still much softer and better than the Depend on in that regard, very close to the level of the Lindor 5D.

Comfort Rating (wet): 10

When it came to wet comfort the Tena Guard was outstanding; very different from what I expected given the relatively thin padding. It swells somewhat but not to a huge amount when wet and remains soft. Given the volume of absorbency it’s rated at I was never going to get close to a level where this pad felt wet with my typical daily drips or dribbles but I did try pressing it a bit for testing. What I found was that it will need to be nearly saturated before you’d really start to notice the dampness. When wet it continues to feel breathable due to the design and isn’t susceptible to clumping or tearing to any real degree. I also had no issue with the tape shifting in any way. For its level of absorbency I can’t really think of anything I’d add to improve the wet comfort of this pad, thus the perfect score.

3.3 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 2.8% (topsheet), 5% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 4 shakes to deterioration

Durability Rating (dry): 9
When it came to dry durability the Tena Guard was highly durable with very little obvious deterioration during the dry durability test. It showed now sign of wearing down after extensive activity and exercise and held its form for an extended time. All I noticed through this was just some minor shifts in padding at its peripheral but no obvious clumping or tearing. I also found that once taped the tape itself will retain a strong grip on the underwear and never had any issues with it shifting out of place. That said, the wings aren’t firmly attached so you will find they may shift from time to time. I rank it similar to the Depend Guard in this regard, though even if both of them were held firmly with their tapes I had less perception of the Tena pad shifting, perhaps due to its compact padding.

Durability Rating (wet): 10

The Tena Guard demonstrated a strong degree of wet durability. Throughout my tests I never had any issues with the padding clumping or tearing when wet. It held its form in the same condition as its dry state in all conditions. I also found the grip on the tape to be unaffected by the dampness and it never lost its adhesiveness. In terms of padding swelling I only noticed a slight swelling and it seemed good at distributing it through the padding. I think this pad would be perfectly durable for active wear, both when wet or dry and I feel it has a slight edge over other tested guards in this regard.

3.4 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests

Profile

Profile Discretion Rating: 10 (Male Guard Adjusted: 10)

The Tena Guard is about as discreet as you could possibly ask for as far as incontinence products go. I found I could wear this pad under pretty much anything and it had no obvious profile. The padding is thinner than most guards on the market. I’d say it’s comparable with the very light men’s shields in terms of discretion even at this higher level of absorbency.

4.1 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

 

Noise

Noise Rating: 10

As was the case with all other male guards, the Tena Guard was completely silent. There wasn’t so much as a hint of noise from this and I’d even give it an edge over the Depend Guard in this respect even if I rank both perfectly. There’s no question that you could wear anything and make any movement and no one will hear a sound from this pad. The only time it’s likely to be noticeable is when you’re changing as pulling the tape on/off will make a noise, but I don’t consider that against actual product sound.

4.3 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Noise Profile

 

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 10
I didn’t notice any odors from the Tena Guard. This was a common theme with Tena products and it does feel like they have something in their padding design that cuts back on odors. That said, it’s harder to gauge this metric for these pads as the limited absorbency reduces the chance of odors in itself. Otherwise, the padding is particularly good in terms of preventing surface dampness, so that helps prevent the formation of odors in the first place.

Want to give the Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum pad a try?

Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum affiliate link. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.