Friday, 31 March 2023

TotalDry X-Plus/Bambino Bianco Adult Diaper Review

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


 

Summary

The TotalDry X-Plus is a high absorbency plastic-backed diaper with a convenient patterned landing zone and strong, high-quality tapes. This diaper has an advertised absorbency of over 3500 ml (118 oz), though in real world usage it’s more likely to be around half of that, with it being a little better suited to overnight wear. These are imported by a subdivision of "The Bottom Half Group LLC", which also imports the ABDL-oriented Bambino line of products from the same factory. In fact, the Bambino Classico and Bianco are effectively identical to this one. Both are currently manufactured by Weifang Mimosa Personalcare Technology in China, which also appears to be the manufacturer for a number of similar products including the Forsite AM/PM, Rearz Barnyard/InControl Elite Hybrid, ABU PeekABU and Trest Elite Briefs among others.

Due to its landing-zone design this diaper can be refastened multiple times as needed, and if you mess up your initial taping you can always remove them and try again. It also has a pattern with numbers on the landing zone so when you find a fit that works best for you it’s easy to consistently get the same fit the next time it’s applied. The padding on this diaper is exceptionally wide, so it will collapse a bit between the legs but I never noticed any deterioration and the wide padding together with the plastic backsheet/snug leg gathers may make this one of the better diapers on the market for side sleepers.

I’d like to give a special shout out to Frank for donating the sample for this review from our wishlist and providing some helpful information to complete the review! Once again, all help is greatly appreciated as we try to build the most comprehensive comparison of adult diapers on the market. Overall, I found this diaper to be very comfortable and durable. It may not be at the top of my rankings, but I found it was one of the easiest diapers to get a snug fit of those tested so far. If you’ve been struggling to find a diaper that fits you just right, the TotalDry X-Plus is certainly worth a try (the fit is slightly smaller than most diapers of equivalent size).


Key Features:

  • Plastic backsheet
  • Thick landing zone with helper pattern
  • Repositionable tapes
  • Dual waistbands
  • Standing inner leak barriers

Pros:

  • High absorbency
  • Snug fit
  • Extensive soft padding
  • Strong tapes + durable

Cons:

  • Expensive unit price
  • No wetness indicator
  • Limited sizing available
  • Some surface dampness issues

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium-sized TotalDry X-Plus Diaper. However, other available sizes are listed below:


Packaging

Brand: TotalDry (by Secure Personal Care Products, LLC.)
Manufacturer: Weifang Mimosa Personalcare Technology
Origin: China
Units Per Bag: 12
Cost Per Unit: $$$$
Dimensions (L x W x H): 36 cm (14.1") x 19 cm (7.5") x 24 cm (9.5")
Weight: 1.8 kg (4.1 lbs)
Available Sizes: M, L, XL
Advertised Absorbency: X-Plus (3500 ml+)

1.1 TotalDry X-Plus Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Plastic (poly)
Wetness Indicator: No
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 (squiggly purple-lined landing zone)
Inner Color: White
Front Waistband: Yes
Rear Waistband: Yes
Folded Thickness: 3 cm (1.2")
Folded Length: 24 cm (9.5")
Dry Weight: 158 g (5.6 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 81 cm (31.9") x 64 cm (25.2") x 34 cm (13.4") x 64 cm (25.2")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 66 cm (26") x 28 cm (11") x 20 cm (7.9") x 39 cm (15.4")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 4 cm (1.6") x 15 cm (5.9") x 9.5 cm (3.7") x 20 cm (7.9")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1820 cm2 (282 in2)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 5.5 cm (2.2") x 14.5 cm (5.7")
Tape (W x L): 4 cm (1.6") x 4 cm (1.6")

 

1.2 TotalDry X-Plus Diaper


Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 1667 ml (58.8 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 1742 ml (61.5 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (70 s, 57 s, 63 s, 84 s, 83 s, 96 s, 84 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 5 cm (2")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 97%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.92 ml / cm2 (0.21 oz / in2)
Press Out Volume: 75 ml (2.7 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 4

Much like the Forsite AM/PM or Rearz Barnyard/InControl Elite Hybrid, the TotalDry X-Plus struggled with surface dampness. Even on the first wetting during the lab test there were some signs of dampness and a substantial amount afterward. In real world testing, I also found it has a tendency for pooling and pressout. Generally dampness was manageable and not too noticeable with a single wetting, but became uncomfortable with any subsequent wettings.



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: 1142 ml (40.3 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 2 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 92%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.63 ml / cm2 (0.14 oz / in2)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 8
The TotalDry X-Plus performed well on the standing-sitting capacity test. The first wetting was completely absorbed without leakage and there was no sign of pressout upon sitting thereafter. At this point the mid-padding swelled a bit but there was still a substantial amount of dry padding up the front and rear. The second wetting was again fully absorbed without leakage, there was quite a bit of initial pooling and it came close to leaking through the front leak guards but eventually was fully absorbed. At this point the front padding was mostly saturated while the rear padding was still dry. On the third wetting there was significant pooling and a substantial leak as moisture pooled up toward the wings and also pressed out through the leg gathers.At this point almost all the padding was saturated except for a very small amount of dry padding at the rear. It’s safe to say this diaper has a maximum capacity of around 2 wettings for daily wear. I have trouble believing it could make it to 3 without leakage. This is a bit less than I was expecting but probably still reasonable for most people if the price point is worth it.


Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 1217 ml (42.9 oz)
Total Wettings: 3
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 95%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.67 ml / cm2 (0.15 oz / in2)

Lying Down Rating: 8

The TotalDry X-Plus performed similar to the standing-sitting test when tested while lying down. The first wetting was fully absorbed without leakage, but I did notice temporary pooling. The pooling could be a concern for those who sleep on their side. Eventually the padding captured all the moisture and the dampness was barely noticeable. On the second wetting there was also significant pooling pushing up the front of the diaper and near the wings. I was a bit worried it might leak out through the wings but if any moisture did make it into the sides the plastic backsheet prevented it from escaping. Eventually it was evenly distributed through the padding with no sign of leakage and the surface dampness wasn’t too noticeable. On the third wetting there was substantial pooling near the rear leg gathers and the padding felt quite saturated. Surprisingly, there was only a small amount of leakage even though the pooling took a long time to absorb into the padding. This was a noticeable difference from the standing-sitting test, where I believe the pressure from sitting resulted in a significant leak. In this test the leak guards did an excellent job at keeping the pooling at bay. For this reason I feel the TotalDry X-Plus would be better suited to bedwetting rather than daily wear (though with the pooling you’d need to be careful if you’re a side-sleeper who wets more than once per night). I expect it will take 2~3 wettings before leakage is a concern when worn while lying down.

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


Daily Wear and Bedwetting

The TotalDry X-Plus could best be described as somewhere in the middle of the lot for premium diapers. It’s not the most absorbent on the market, but highly comfortable and durable. I found the material to be very similar to the Forsite AM/PM and maybe even the Rearz diapers. Like the Forsite and Rearz diapers, this diaper has a perforated topsheet and soft, thick padding. It also features a large landing zone at the front made of a thicker plastic. During daily wear I found this diaper to be a little on the bulky side, but also more susceptible to pressout leakage than I might otherwise want for a diaper on its thickness. It will easily manage a single heavy wetting without any sign of pressout of dampness, but there’s more of a risk of pressout on the second wetting and it’s sure to leak on the third. In that way I feel it’s not as well suited to daily wear than you’d get from a more discreet but similarly absorbent diaper like the Tena Slip Active Fit Ultima, and for this reason, I feel it’s best suited to overnight wear. That said, it does have one big advantage in daily wear with tapes that are easy to re-attach multiple times and never seem to lose their strength. It also has padding that almost never clumps or tears, even when wet. Surprisingly, it’s also pretty good at heat dispersion (maybe a result of the low density padding?), so much so I think it’d be fine in warmer weather, but maybe not middle-of-summer level heat. When worn overnight, pressout is less of a concern and the very wide padding and snug leak guards make it particularly effective for managing bedwetting. I never had any issues or saw signs of leakage when worn for bedwetting. Aside from that, in general I did find it to be a bit prone to surface dampness as well as pooling immediately after a wetting. However, I never had any issues with skin irritation, with the only minor source of discomfort being where the landing zone meets the leg gathers in the front. For those interested in giving it a try, this diaper fits on the smaller side so it’s best to go up a size if you’re in the upper half of the sizing measurements. If you like the Rearz or Forsite diapers, then you’re certain to like this one. It's of high comfort and quality, but would be best bought if on sale since the standard pricing feels a bit on the high side for the level of absorbency.


Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 10

I’m giving the TotalDry X-Plus a perfect score for its ability to manage bowel incontinence. It has strong, generous standing inner leak guards with good elastic leg gathers and wide waistbands. The tapes and plastic backsheet are also among the best on the market for durability, making it perfect for containment. These are also a little more economical than the similar Trest Elite or Forsite AM/PM for managing bowel incontinence. Overall, I can’t think of any reason this diaper wouldn’t be perfectly suited for this purpose.


Wear & Tear Tests


Fitting

The TotalDry X-Plus features dual waistbands, repositionable tapes (with a numbered landing zone), standing inner leak guards and a wide area of padding. Almost everything you could ask for in terms of diaper features. It also has a soft, plastic backsheet that easily flexes to fit the wearer’s body. It’s very similar in construction to the Forsite AM/PM, yet I’d say the sizing runs a bit smaller and more compact while the padding is less dense.

3.1 TotalDry X-Plus Fastener
 

Ease-of-Use Rating: 9

I found the TotalDry X-Plus to be very easy to use. I never had any issues getting a snug fit and, when tape readjustments were needed, it was easy to make them without fear of damaging their adhesion. The landing zone design of this diaper means tapes can be reapplied in a completely different placement than they were initially applied. Moreover, the TotalDry X-Plus features a helpful pattern on the landing zone so when you learn the spatial position of your best fit it's easy to consistently re-achieve the same fit. I couldn’t find many things I’d consider deficiencies in this diaper for ease-of-use, but a few things that come to mind include its lack of a wetness indicator and the strength required to remove the tapes. For those who have difficulties with their grip removing the tapes could potentially be an issue. While in a care environment the lack of a wetness indicator could be problematic. For those reasons I can’t quite give it a perfect score, but this diaper easily ranks near the top in terms of ease-of-use, particularly for those who don’t require assistance.

3.2 TotalDry X-Plus Fit
 

Comfort


Comfort Rating (dry): 8

When it comes to dry comfort I rank the TotalDry X-Plus similar to the Forsite AM/PM. They both have a very similar construct. The padding is generally quite soft, perhaps even a bit fluffier than the Forsite AM/PM given its lower density. The primary backsheet material is a soft plastic, yet not quite on the level of softness you’d get from the Attends Slip Regular Plus or Tena Slip Active Fit Maxi. I found the main source of discomfort in this diaper to be the plastic landing zone. While the landing zone wide and convenient it’s also very firm and can rub against the skin a bit near the front leg gathers. Otherwise, the padding is soft and doesn’t clump or tear at all. Even with its tendency to fold, given its width, I have no real complaints about the padding. Also, I was surprised that this diaper never felt particularly warm, suggesting the design may be fine for warmer weather, but perhaps not hot weather. I think a softer landing zone would make this diaper much better in terms of comfort, but otherwise it should be perfect for bedwetting or those who are less active.


Comfort Rating (wet): 7

I rank the TotalDry X-Plus similar to the Forsite AM/PM or Abena M4 when it comes to comfort when wet. This diaper has similar issues with surface dampness and pooling, particularly compared with the Forsite AM/PM. For the most part, this isn’t an issue on the first wetting, since it does a good job at wicking through the padding and dampness is only marginally noticeable. However, by the second wetting there will usually be some initial pooling and afterward it’s susceptible to pressout moisture whereby moisture comes up through the backsheet when sitting. Otherwise, I found this diaper to remain fairly comfortable when wet. The backsheet feels surprisingly light and breathable to the point I didn’t notice much sweat or clamminess. The tapes are also very strong and in spite of the width of the padding, I didn’t notice nearly as much sagging in this diaper compared with the Forsite AM/PM. I suspect that may be partly due to the lighter padding and lesser thickness, but on the flip side it was more susceptible to surface dampness.

3.3 TotalDry X-Plus Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 12.8% (topsheet), 10.5% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 3 shakes to deterioration


Durability Rating (dry): 9
I rank the TotalDry X-Plus the same as the Forsite AM/PM when it comes to dry durability, due to the very similar build. The dry durability test results skewed slightly toward the Forsite AM/PM with more deterioration in the TotalDry X-Plus (perhaps because the padding in this diaper is a bit less dense). Even so there was no real deterioration in critical parts of the padding, it all happened as a result of the already very wide padding collapsing in between the legs. I don’t feel this type of deterioration has a very significant impact on the comfort or performance of the diaper so I don’t weigh it as heavily as the numbers might imply. The tapes also give this diaper a strong edge for dry durability since they have a very strong grip and can be refastened and repositioned multiple times with no risk of loosening.


Durability Rating (wet): 9

The TotalDry X-Plus is remarkably durable when wet. Again, like the Forsite AM/PM, the padding will collapse a bit between the legs but it doesn’t tear or clump. Moreover, the incredibly strong tapes can be refastened multiple times and are unphased by the extra weight when wet. This diaper is slightly more compact with a less bulky feel than the Forsite AM/PM, so perhaps better suited for more active wear, albeit with a bit less absorbency. I can’t see this diaper ever failing when wet, but pressout surface dampness would be a lingering concern after 2 wettings.

3.4 TotalDry X-Plus Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests


Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 2.5 cm (1"), 3 cm (1.2")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 7.5 cm (3"), 5 cm (2")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4 cm (1.6"), 4 cm (1.6")

Profile Discretion Rating: 4

The TotalDry X-Plus doesn’t hold much back, this diaper has a wide padding that has a tendency to fold in or outward resulting in diaper bulges. This makes this diaper particularly difficult to hide under clothing. It doesn’t have the densest padding so it may be possible to somewhat collapse it under meshpants. Additionally, the rise on this diaper goes quite high above the waistline. Overall, it probably is better suited for bedwetting or wear around the house if discretion is important.

4.1 TotalDry X-Plus Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 TotalDry X-Plus Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) 


Noise

Noise Rating: 6

The TotalDry X-Plus performed similar to the Trest Elite and Bambino Karnevalee diapers. The backsheet itself is surprisingly flexible, even if not the softest on the market. I rarely noticed any noise from the actual backsheet. The primary contributor to the noise in this diaper is the thick plastic-landing zone. It frequently produces a crinkling noise with movement, particularly when getting up or sitting down.

4.3 TotalDry X-Plus Noise Profile

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 8
The TotalDry X-Plus does a decent job at suppressing odors. It has no observable fragrance itself, but I rarely noticed odors while testing this diaper. I feel that owes largely to its design with the snug fitting waistbands and leg gathers together with the plastic-backsheet material. The padding itself doesn’t appear particularly apt for odor reduction given its tendency for surface dampness, but it does seem to have some degree of odor reduction built-in.


Want to give the TotalDry X-Plus Briefs a try?

Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our TotalDry X-Plus affiliate link. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.


Saturday, 25 February 2023

Trest Elite Briefs Adult Diaper Review

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


Summary

The Trest Elite could theoretically have the most absorbency of any diaper on the market, with an incredible advertised absorbency of 9500 ml (321 oz). For reference, the average volume of urine produced by an adult per day is about 800 to 2000 ml so you’re talking at least 4 days of wear before you’d ever approach that limit. Obviously, it is completely unreasonable to be wearing a diaper for that long, so such capacity may be overkill. In our own lab settings with saline water mimicking urine and accounting for pressout leakage, we found this capacity to be more in the 3000 ml (101 oz) range, which would still theoretically provide 1~3 days of wear before requiring a change (which again is still a ridiculously long time to go without a change). In real world wear I found the overall absorbency actually works against its capacity because the highly absorbent tends to swell and create something of a dam, which stops moisture from making it toward the rear padding and instead directs it toward the leg gathers. This leads to leakage far sooner than you might expect, more likely in the 1500 ml ~ 3000 ml range. I believe it's the same issue as the NorthShore MegaMax and both are relatively slow when it comes to their absorption rate.

I’d like to give a special shout out to Brett for donating the sample for this review from our wishlist! All help is greatly appreciated as we try to build the most comprehensive comparison of adult diapers on the market. This was a really interesting one to review given its ridiculous capacity. This diaper comes with 3 different colored backsheets: white (shown in this review), blue and pink. From a price perspective I doubt many will find it economical, unless you can get by with only one change a day. Yet the Trest Elite diaper will easily provide protection for even the heaviest wettings.


Key Features:

  • Plastic backsheet
  • Thick landing zone
  • Repositionable tapes
  • Dual waistbands
  • Standing inner leak barriers

Pros:

  • Very high absorbency
  • Extensive soft padding
  • Strong tapes + durable

Cons:

  • Very expensive unit price
  • No wetness indicator
  • Can get a bit warm

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium-sized Trest Elite Diaper. However, other available sizes are listed below:


Packaging

Brand: Trest (by the JNA Corp.)
Manufacturer: Weifang Mimosa Personalcare Technology
Origin: China
Units Per Bag: 10
Cost Per Unit: $$$$
Dimensions (L x W x H): 34 cm (13.4") x 20 cm (7.9") x 26 cm (10.2")
Weight: 2.3 kg (5.1 lbs)
Available Sizes: S, M, L, XL
Advertised Absorbency: Ultra (9500 ml)


1.1 Trest Elite Briefs Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Plastic (poly)
Wetness Indicator: No
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
Inner Color: White
Front Waistband: Yes
Rear Waistband: Yes
Folded Thickness: 3.3 cm (1.3")
Folded Length: 23 cm (9.1")
Dry Weight: 225 g (7.9 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 83 cm (32.7") x 66 cm (26") x 32 cm (12.6") x 65 cm (25.6")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 66 cm (26") x 29 cm (11.4") x 22 cm (8.7") x 39 cm (15.4")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 3.5 cm (1.4") x 13 cm (5.1") x 8.5 cm (3.4") x 18 cm (7.1")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1849 cm2 (287 in2)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 3.5 cm (1.4") x 14 cm (5.5")
Tape (W x L): 5 cm (2") x 4 cm (1.6")

 

1.2 Trest Elite Diaper


Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 3225 ml (113.8 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 3325 ml (117.3 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (55s, 50s, 58s, 79s, 81s, 79s, 88s, 95s, 104s, 104s, 113s, 112s, 109s, 103s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 8 cm (3.2")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 92%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 1.74 ml / cm2 (0.40 oz / in2)
Press Out Volume: 100 ml (3.5 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 9

The Trest Elite Briefs performed very well when it came to surface dampness. During the lab test there was little-to-no indication of surface dampness on the paper towel until the 4th wetting. This was backed up in real world wear with the backsheet proving remarkably resistant to surface dampness and the diaper never felt particularly clammy when wet. The only potential issue here is that sometimes the absorption can be slow, resulting in temporary pooling that will make the diaper feel quite damp for a short time.




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: 1475 ml (52 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 3 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 61%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.80 ml / cm2 (0.18 oz / in2)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 9
The Trest Elite did very well on the standing-sitting capacity test. The first wetting while standing was easily absorbed with no sign of leakage and not a hint of leakage up on sitting shortly afterwards. I felt that there may have been a little initial surface dampness due to pooling but it wasn’t long lived. The second wetting while seated was again readily absorbed with brief pooling but no signs of leaks and no surface dampness after it was absorbed. The front padding had swelled considerably at this point but the rear padding was still completely dry. The third wetting performed much like the second wetting, but in this case the front padding had swelled so much that it started to block moisture and spread more up toward the wings. Again there was no leakage on the wetting though I had some concern that it would leak through the wings with the brief pooling. On the fourth wetting there was a modest leak through the lower right rear leg gather so I ended the test at that. During this wetting the front padding was very swollen and moisture was mostly redirected toward the wings and down along the sides. The diaper certainly could have absorbed substantially more than it did with tons of dry padding remaining at the rear. I suspect the reason it failed so early was that the incredible amount of padding swelling near the crotch and tendency for padding to fold inward between the legs (because of its width at the mid-section) meant too much moisture was able to pool near the leg gathers before being absorbed. Had it been able to wick moisture further/faster or direct it more effectively it would have absorbed an incredible amount of moisture, but in practice hitting anywhere near the real capacity doesn’t seem realistic. I believe most will find it can absorb 3~5 wettings during daily wear without leakage, but you’re highly unlikely to reach the padding capacity before leakage (particularly when seated).


Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 1775 ml (62.6 oz)
Total Wettings: 5
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 62%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.96 ml / cm2 (0.22 oz / in2)

Lying Down Rating: 10

The Trest Elite proved top notch when tested for capacity while lying down. The first wetting was quickly and easily absorbed with little sensation of surface dampness. Likewise on the second wetting the extensive padding easily prevented any leakage. It felt like there was a bit of pooling on the third wetting but it was temporary and there were no signs of leaks and minimal indication of surface dampness. Moveover, the much of the front and rear padding was still dry at this point when for most other diapers it would be saturated. There was a bit more pooling on the forth wetting and it felt like a little may have pressed up through the front padding and worked its way into the sides, but the plastic-backsheet prevented any leakage and I didn’t notice any obvious dampness afterward. At this point the front padding was mostly wet but there was still a substantial amount of dry padding at the rear of the diaper. The diaper finally leaked on the fifth wetting, which felt a bit soon given the large area of unused padding at the rear. The problem was that the padding at the mid section/crotch had swelled to such an extent that it formed something of a dam, blocking moisture from quickly reaching the rear padding and resulting in substantial pooling and leakage through the left leg gather then out through the sides. At this point the diaper had absorbed a huge amount of moisture and easily came out among the top performing in this category. However, it undoubtedly had room for even further absorption had it been able to direct further moisture to the rear padding. At the end of the test the diaper had swelled quite a bit. The padding still felt dry with little sensation of surface dampness outside of the side wing where the leakage occurred. For this reason you’re unlikely to ever approach the full capacity of this diaper but will likely get 3~5 wettings without leakage when worn lying down, easily enough for even the heaviest of bedwetters.

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


Daily Wear and Bedwetting

The Trest Elite diaper is ridiculously absorbent, but it would be very hard to come anywhere close to the absolute capacity of this diaper in a real world setting. During all my testing the padding at the rear never got wet in spite of multiple wettings. It pretty much always leaked before there would be any chance for the rear padding to absorb it. During the lab test when the structure wasn’t a factor it was able to absorb over 3225 ml (113 oz) after pressout, which is probably about the maximum theoretical capacity you could expect. However, during real world wear you’ll find that the diaper swells so much at the crotch/mid padding that it pushes inward and deflects additional moisture toward the sides where it’s more likely to leak. This is further amplified because the padding at the diaper’s midsection is so wide that it has a tendency to fold upward between the legs. During daily wear I found it would frequently exceed 2000 ml (67 oz) without any sign of leakage when worn all day. It absorbed less than that in the standing-sitting test but that’s likely because the design leads to leakage much sooner when sitting and if wet, while standing it will surely absorb a lot more before leakage as gravity will pull down the swollen padding creating a gap for moisture to move further back. When worn for bedwetting this diaper should be highly reliable and I’d expect it to absorb enough for even the heaviest wetters. Due to its very high price you’d probably only want to change this diaper twice a day (e.g. morning and before bed) and I think with its resistance against surface dampness and capacity that may be realistic. During testing I never had any skin issues from this diaper and it never felt particularly clammy. The backsheet is a soft plastic that won’t chafe against the wearer's skin, but due to its large size it’s not going to be great for active wear. If you could make it work well for active wear, the tapes have an incredibly strong hold. This diaper feels a lot like the NorthShore MegaMax or maybe even the Forsite AM/PM (to a lesser extent) in terms of its build.  All three diapers have a very similar thick plastic landing zone. I can’t say I’m a huge fan of the landing zone on these as it’s very stiff and contributes to noise when worn, but I don’t feel it’s particularly uncomfortable either. I think all these diapers are better suited to winter wear than summer wear and you’d be better with the Seni Super Quatro or Tena Slip Active Fit Ultima (if you prefer a plastic-backsheet) for summer wear. If you’re a fan of the MegaMax but it isn’t quite working for your capacity needs this diaper could be a great alternative.


Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 10

The Trest Elite diaper is excellently suited for bowel incontinence. It has an extensive area of rear padding and generous standing leak guards. It also fits snugly with strong elastic waistbands that will retain odors and reduce the chance of sagging. Moreover, this diaper has a strong plastic-backsheet that should provide great security for those with bowel incontinence. That said, if you account for the cost per brief it may not be the best choice if you only have bowel incontinence as with bowel incontinence you’d want to change asap after a bowel movement.


Wear & Tear Tests


Fitting

The Trest Elite diaper is full featured with dual waistbands, repositionable tapes, standing inner leak guards and extensive padding coverage. I found the fit to be slightly on the larger side, but not so much as the ConfiDry 24/7 or NorthShore Megamax (which seems to have the sizes shifted one level up). It features a firm plastic tape landing zone very similar to the MegaMax or Forsite AM/PM, where tapes can be reattached to any point on the landing zone multiple times. The tapes are large and of high quality, I never noticed much in the way of weakening after multiple refastenings.

3.1 Trest Elite Briefs Fastener

Ease-of-Use Rating: 7

The Trest Elite diaper is very user-friendly. I never had trouble getting a snug comfortable fit with this diaper. If you don’t get the tapes right the first time then it’s easy to re-apply them to the large landing zone. This means the diaper should fit well for a variety of body types. However, you need to be mindful of placement, as the types are so strong that if they were placed anywhere outside the landing zone they will pull up part of the backsheet; generally I found this was an issue on the backsheet near the waistband so it wouldn’t affect performance much anyway. The waistbands also help with the fit and you’ll never need to worry about this diaper coming loose on you, even when very wet. Perhaps the biggest short-coming, at least for a care-giver environment, is the lack of a wetness indicator. The diaper has an all white backsheet and the best way to tell whether it's wet is the swollen padding. That said, if you change at a regular basis the shear absorbency and resistance to dampness mean you could probably also time it to change twice a day and never need to worry about leakage.

3.2 Trest Elite Diaper Fit

Comfort


Comfort Rating (dry): 8

I rank the Trest Elite diaper similar to the NorthShore MegaMax when it comes to dry comfort. This diaper has a very similar structure and material makeup. The backsheet is of a thick plastic, but also soft and flexible. The padding is thick and very soft, it extends well up the rear of the diaper with generous coverage. Perhaps the biggest detractor is the very thick plastic landing zone on the front. This is great for keeping the tapes in place, and indeed I never had an issue with this diaper coming loose, yet it reduces the overall flexibility of the diaper. I also feel that it reduces the heat dispersion in this diaper, so while it doesn’t get particularly clammy, it can get pretty warm and is probably best for cold weather wear. Aside from that, the padding holds up very well with no obvious signs of clumping or tearing. If you want a lighter feeling diaper than the Trest Elite won’t meet your comfort standards, but if you don’t mind something a bit thicker this diaper is nearly as comfortable as they get for a plastic-backed diaper.


Comfort Rating (wet): 10

The Trest Elite diaper was right up there with the NorthShore MegaMax when it comes to comfort when wet. Both perform exceptionally well at resisting surface dampness. The Trest diaper is well constructed and has no trouble keeping its form when heavier while wet. There was a lot of swelling, but little in the way of significant sagging or padding tearing. The backsheet is somewhat thick but also very soft and I didn’t notice much in the way of clamminess. If anything, because this diaper is so ridiculously absorbent that you’re likely to have a lot of dry padding even after several wettings, so you really won’t notice much change from its dry state other than it being a bit heavier. For this reason I give the Trest Elite diaper top marks when it comes to wet comfort.

3.3 Trest Elite Briefs Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 8.5% (topsheet), 7.1% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 2 shakes to deterioration


Durability Rating (dry): 9
The Trest Elite is a very well built diaper. The tapes are among the strongest on the market and the padding is thick and highly resistant to clumping or tearing. During the dry durability test the only hint of deterioration was in the padding between the legs. This was likely due to the padding being exceptionally wide in that area to begin with so the collapse was not surprising and wouldn’t have detracted from absorbency. This diaper is pretty much guaranteed to hold its form with any amount of wear and the tapes don’t seem to lose much adhesiveness with multiple refastenings. The only thing to note is that you need to be a bit careful when applying the tapes to make sure they don’t come into contact with anything outside of the landing zone because they’ll tear off bits of backsheet if you’re not careful.


Durability Rating (wet): 10

The Trest Elite proved incredibly durable when wet. Though it should be noted that it’s hard to even get this diaper to a point one would consider wet since it absorbs to such an extent that there will almost always be a substantial amount of dry padding before you need a change. With that said, this diaper never showed signs of sagging, clumping or tearing. The padding held together incredibly well, but swelled substantially. I feel this padding swelling may have even helped with keeping the padding from deteriorating as the pressure on the topsheet and backsheet would keep it from coming apart so long as both backsheet and topsheet held strong (which they did). Additionally the tapes were excellent and could be refastened multiple times without losing their adhesiveness; even under the weight of the wet diaper there was no sign of tape weakness. This diaper seems to retain a snug fit under all circumstances and I can’t really think of anything I’d suggest as an improvement. It didn’t perform particularly well in the wet shake test, but I’ve found that isn’t a very useful metric in highly absorbent diapers like this one.

3.4 Trest Elite Briefs Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests


Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4 cm (1.6"), 4 cm (1.6")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 7.5 cm (3"), 5 cm (2")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 5.5 cm (2.1"), 4 cm (1.6")

Profile Discretion Rating: 5

The Trest Elite diaper makes little effort to conceal itself and will easily be noticeable under many outfits. It has a fairly high rise above the pant-line and obvious bulge at the rear when dry. That said, its snug fit makes it comparable to the NorthShore MegaMax in terms of discretion and I’ve ranked it just below because this diaper has a slightly larger fit. Of course, when wet to anywhere near capacity this diaper will swell to incredible proportions, which is also something you’d want to keep in mind. It’s probably better suited for bedwetting or around-the-house wear, perhaps longer trips for those who want the extra security.

 

4.1 Trest Elite Briefs Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Trest Elite Briefs Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) 


Noise

Noise Rating: 6

The Trest Elite suffers the crinkling noise that many plastic-backed diapers produce, but I feel like the biggest contributor is the stiffer landing zone on this diaper. This diaper has very thick padding, much like the BetterDry/Crinklz, which I’ve found in other diapers has actually been good for dampening the sound. With a bit of care (underwear/meshpants) I think this diaper could be worn with little noticeable sound, but it would be hard to hide the “swoosh” you get from the stiff landing zone when sitting down or standing up.

4.3 Trest Elite Briefs Noise Profile
 

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 10
I’m giving the Trest Elite top marks when it comes to odor reduction. Not only is the padding highly resistant to surface dampness, but the strong tapes and high quality elastic waistbands ensure there are few opportunities for odors to escape the backsheet. I was expecting this diaper to perform similar to the MegaMax in this regard due to the similar construct, but I found it to be a bit better; perhaps on account of the increased absorbency.


Want to give the Trest Elite Briefs a try?

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