Friday, 21 April 2023

ABU Little Kings / Alpha Gators Adult Diaper Review

*For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology. For a list of all product reviews see the Product Index.

 


 

Summary

The ABU Little Kings and Alpha Gators are effectively the same diaper but with different backsheet designs. These diapers have a very high level of absorbency and playfully-printed cloth-like backsheet. They’re clearly marketed toward the ABDL community and hardly what I’d consider discreet. I find the marketing interesting, being “Inspired by Japan”, “Designed in America” and “Made in China”. The biggest standout feature in these diapers, which is heavily marketed, is the positional print technique used to produce the sophisticated backsheet designs. I will say that I’m pretty impressed with the quality of the result. When they refer to positional print it’s actually a simple concept. It just has to do with where the diaper’s patterned backsheet is cut. The production process is a bit more complicated with positional printing because each diaper needs to be cut at exactly the right spot in the material roll rather than cutting at any random spot as you would with a repeating pattern.

In terms of performance these diapers rank highly. They have an advertised absorbency of 7500 ml (254 oz), but during testing I found the practical absorbency to be more in the 1200 ~ 2500 ml (40~84 oz) range before leakage would be a concern. They’re also highly comfortable and durable. Overall, I was happy with the performance of this diaper, but would have a bit of a hard time justifying the cost of it. If you really want a cute printed diaper to emphasize your kawaii factor then this is for you. For practical daily wear I think the price point will put this out of most people’s reach.


Key Features:

  • Cloth-like backsheet
  • Positional printed backsheet designs
  • Hook & loop fasteners + landing zone
  • Repositionable tapes
  • Dual waistbands
  • Standing inner leak barriers

Pros:

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

Cons:

  • Very expensive unit price
  • Post-wetting pooling
  • Limited sizing available

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium-sized ABU Little Kings/Alpha Gators Diaper. However, other available sizes are listed below:


Packaging

Brand: ABU (by ABUniverse)
Manufacturer: Weifang Mimosa Personalcare Technology
Origin: China
Units Per Bag: 10
Cost Per Unit: $$$$
Dimensions (L x W x H): 28 cm (11") x 17 cm (6.7") x 25.5 cm (10")
Weight: 1.9 kg (4.2 lbs)
Available Sizes: M, L, XL
Advertised Absorbency: Maximum (7500 ml)

1.1 ABU Little Kings Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Cloth-like (non-woven)
Wetness Indicator: Yes (yellow line down middle, blue when wet)
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 with green/blue waistband / playful prints
Inner Color: White
Front Waistband: Yes
Rear Waistband: Yes
Folded Thickness: 3.2 cm (1.3")
Folded Length: 25 cm (9.8")
Dry Weight: 192 g (6.8 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 79 cm (31.1") x 64 cm (25.2") x 32 cm (12.6") x 62 cm (24.4")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 66 cm (26") x 30 cm (11.8") x 17 cm (6.7") x 35 cm (13.8")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 6.5 cm (2.6") x 12 cm (4.7") x 9 cm (3.5") x 17 cm (6.7")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1584 cm2 (246 in2)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 5 cm (2") x 13 cm (5.1")
Tape (W x L): 4.5 cm (1.8") x 5 cm (2")

 

1.2 ABU Little Kings Diaper



1.3 ABU Alpha Gators Diaper

Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 2233 ml (78.8 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 2258 ml (79.7 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (66 s, 66 s, 86 s, 89 s, 96 s, 80 s, 75 s, 69 s, 69 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 7 cm (2.8")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 88%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 1.41 ml / cm2 (0.32 oz / in2)
Press Out Volume: 25 ml (0.9 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 9

The padding construction of the ABU Little Kings is almost identical to the NorthShore MegaMax and ABU PeekABU. During the lab test there was no obvious surface dampness on the paper towel test until at least the 4th wetting. However, the slow absorption rate led to pooling and some moisture slid over the topsheet. During real world testing, the excellent resistance to surface dampness continued to be the case, with the cloth-like backsheet perhaps even giving this one an edge over the similar plastic-backed versions in helping keep it "breathable". Even so, I couldn’t quite give it a perfect score on the part of its tendency for initial pooling after a wetting.


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: 1283 ml (45.3 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 2 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 63%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.81 ml / cm2 (0.18 oz / in2)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 9
The ABU Little Kings performed well on the standing-sitting capacity test but not so much as I might have expected. The first wetting while standing was quickly absorbed, though there was some temporary pooling. Once completely absorbed the dampness was barely perceivable and the diaper hardly felt any different from its dry state. There was no hint of leakage or surface dampness upon sitting shortly afterwards. During the second wetting while seated there was a bit more pooling but no hints of leakage and once it was absorbed the dampness was again neglectable with no hint of pressout. On the third wetting while seated there was significant pooling at the front of the diaper. Enough so that it worked its way up the front and out the wings before the diaper could absorb it. This resulted in a substantial leak through the left wing. Once absorbed the diaper again felt mostly dry and there was clearly plenty of potential absorbency left, but it was a bit too late at that point. This was very similar to my experience with the NorthShore MegaMax or ABU PeekABU, pointing to the very similar internal construction between the three. At the end of the test most of the front/mid padding was wet but almost all the rear padding was completely dry. I suspect this diaper will typically handle 2~4 wettings during daily wear before leakage is a concern (it will likely take a lot more wettings while standing compared to sitting before leakage occurs).


Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 2158 ml (76.1 oz)
Total Wettings: 5
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 97%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.36 ml / cm2 (0.31 oz / in2)

Lying Down Rating: 10

The ABU Little Kings performed exceptionally well when tested while lying down. The first wetting was quickly and easily absorbed with little sense of surface dampness afterward and no leaks. The second wetting was also fully absorbed without leakage. There was a brief amount of pooling on the second wetting but it didn’t last long. Likewise on the third wetting, where pooling continued to be a theme but the diaper’s structure made it perfect for redirecting any pooling and there was never an issue with absorption. Even after the third wetting this diaper continued to feel relatively dry and comfortable. The same was true for the fourth wetting and aside from the swollen padding, after the wetting was absorbed it didn’t feel considerably different from its dry state. The padding was quite swollen at the fourth wetting and mostly saturated but still felt fairly dry. The padding had swelled considerably near the crotch of the diaper at this point but was less noticeable when lying down. On the fifth wetting there was substantial pooling as a lot of moisture was blocked from making it to the rear of the diaper due to the padding swelling. Eventually a bit made its way into the wings and escaped through the back of the diaper. What’s interesting is that in spite of being “cloth-backed” the wings in the backsheet did not allow any moisture through directly and so some of it actually made it to the rear padding indirectly. The leaks were relatively small but enough that they’d stain the bedding. Overall this diapers performance when lying down was impressive and it would be highly unlikely to leak for anyone who wets the bed. Expect it to manage 4~5 wettings before leakage is a concern when lying down.

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


Daily Wear and Bedwetting

The ABU Little Kings/Alpha Gators has an interesting set of features. Internally, the topsheet is nearly identical to the plastic-backed ABU PeekABU or NorthShore MegaMax. They all have a honeycomb-textured padding that’s relatively dense and resistant to surface dampness. On the flip side, the topsheet does have a bit of a slow absorption rate so an initial wetting will result in temporary pooling, which is when it's at highest risk of leaks. The topsheet is the key differentiator in this diaper, it’s cloth-backed and features a playful print that covers the entirety of the topsheet. The design and prints are high quality and clearly catered to the ABDL-market. It also has hook & loop fasteners with a landing zone that’s very similar to that found in the Attento or Unicharm diapers. I feel like this diaper is a little better suited to bedwetting/overnight wear when compared to daily wear. For one, this diaper is huge and has an obvious profile that would be very hard to conceal. It’s also far more absorbent when worn lying down as there’s a better chance for moisture to make its way to the rear padding. During daily wear this diaper will do a lot better if most wettings happen while standing. Yet, it will leak well before capacity if wettings happen while seated because the padding at the crotch/mid-section swells to the point that it effectively blocks moisture from making it back to the unused padding at the rear. The plus side for daily wear is that it’s one of the most breathable premium absorbency diapers on the market, since most others with a comparable level of absorbency don’t have a cloth-like backsheet. Also, in spite of the backsheet being cloth-like, it is still very resistant to moisture seepage and I never had any issues with backsheet perspiration or leakage through the wing material during testing. When worn for bedwetting I never woke up to any leaks and feel this will provide more than enough absorbency for even the heaviest wetters. Also of note, this diaper features a functional wetness indicator (a yellow line that clearly goes from yellow to blue when wet. The sizing is about in line with the ABU PeekABU and it’s easy to get a snug fit. The tapes and design are also incredibly durable and I never had it come loose on me during daily or overnight wear. Nor did I have any issues with skin irritation, even during extended wearing. Of course the biggest downside to this diaper is the cost, you’d practically need to take out a mortgage to use the ABU Little Kings/Alpha Gators as your daily diaper. For many, that will mean it remains something of a novelty.


Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 10

The ABU Little Kings is perfectly suited for managing bowel incontinence. It’s very easy to get a snug fit with this diaper and it has strong inner leak guards and leg gathers. Moreover, this diaper is one of the best on the market for surface dampness containment. The amount of rear padding coverage is also very generous and perfectly suited for this purpose. If you can overlook the price-point this diaper ranks at the top in terms of being suited for bowel incontinence, which is quite a rarity for cloth-backed diapers.


Wear & Tear Tests


Fitting

The ABU Little Kings is a high quality full featured diaper. It has dual waistbands, repositionable tapes with a patterned landing zone, standing inner leak guards and a generous amount of padding coverage. It has a cloth-like backsheet and the landing zone somewhat resembles the one on the Attento or Unicharm diapers or “hybrids” like the Rearz Barnyard/InControl Elite Hybrid. The sizing of this diaper is about average if not slightly smaller than others on the market for its advertised sizes. The tapes can be refastened and repositioned multiple times without losing adhesiveness.

3.1 ABU Little Kings Fastener

Ease-of-Use Rating: 10

I give the ABU Little Kings top marks for ease-of-use. It’s very easy to get a snug fit with this diaper as the leg gathers and waistbands are large and flexible. The landing zone also provides a generous space to attach or reattach/position the tapes if you get the first try wrong. The backsheet pattern, while clearly ABDL-focused, actually makes it easy to consistently get a good fit because it provides a reference point. Also, unlike the similar NorthShore MegaMax or ABU PeekABU, this diaper has a good quality wetness indicator for those who need assistance. The tapes on this diaper are also easier to add/remove than the NorthShore MegaMax or ABU PeekABU. Again, I can’t really see a downside to this diaper that would complicate usage and thus the perfect score.

3.2 ABU Little Kings Fit

 

3.3 ABU Alpha Gators Fit

Comfort


Comfort Rating (dry): 10

The ABU Little Kings is among the most comfortable diapers on the market. I rank it similar to the Seni Super Quatro in this regard. The padding is a little firmer (basically identical to the NorthShore MegaMax), but the backsheet is a similar level of softness to the Quatro. Like the Seni Super Quatro this diaper features a moisture-resistant type of cloth-like backsheet but remains highly breathable. The landing zone at the front is rigid and made of a similar material to the Attento and Unicharm diapers. The tapes are easily refastenable and present little difficulty in getting a snug fit. I didn’t find the landing zone to be as irritating as that of the ABU PeekABU or NorthShore MegaMax. When worn for bedwetting I could hardly even tell I was wearing a diaper, in spite of its large/thick padding. I’d say this diaper could do well in warmer weather where other thick premium diapers might not, though perhaps not as good as the Seni Super Quatro. Overall, I can’t think of any significant comfort flaws and thus I’m giving the ABU Little Kings a perfect score for dry comfort.


Comfort Rating (wet): 10

The ABU Little Kings proved to be among the most comfortable diapers on the market when it came to wet comfort. Like the NorthShore MegaMax or ABU PeekABU this diaper is highly resistant to surface dampness, so aside from the padding swelling and feeling thicker, it doesn’t really feel any different from the wet state. In fact this diaper may have a bit of an edge over the other two, due to its cloth-like backsheet that makes it more resistant to overheating/sweat. Furthermore, the padding remains highly durable when wet and will not fall apart (clump or tear) so there continues to be minimal skin contact with the inner part of the backsheet. I do have to point out that when initially wet there will be pooling as the padding is limited in the speed of absorption. Still, I didn’t count that aspect against it in this regard because there’s tons of room for absorption and once captured it isn’t susceptible to pressout.

3.4 ABU Little Kings Topsheet and Backsheet


3.5 ABU Alpha Gators Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 4.7% (topsheet), 6.4% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 3 shakes to deterioration


Durability Rating (dry): 9
The ABU Little Kings performed very well when it came to dry durability. During the durability test there was very little deterioration, mostly in non-key parts of the padding. The tapes aren’t as strong as the plastic-backed equivalents, but still reasonably strong and they don’t lose adhesiveness with refastenings. The wetness indicator is also highly resistant to dampness and never showed signs of sweat/minor dribble during dry testing. Moreover, refastening tapes won’t pull bits of cloth off the backsheet like many cloth-like diapers. It also maintains a snug fit and I never had issues with it coming loose during active wear. It wasn’t among the very best diapers with regards to dry durability, but pretty close.


Durability Rating (wet): 9

The ABU Little Kings is nearly identical to the NorthShore MegaMax or ABU PeekABU in terms of wet durability. The backsheet is a different material, but that doesn’t matter much when the padding and structure are about the same. The tapes are perhaps slightly weaker than the other two due to the hook & loop fastening mechanism, but I found they had no problem holding the weight of the wet diaper. On the other hand, the backsheet with its softer landing zone could add to its flexibility and make it suited for active wear. If you’re OK with the thickness, this diaper will have no trouble with active daily wear.


3.6 ABU Little Kings Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests


Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 5 cm (2"), 6 cm (2.4")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 6 cm (2.4"), 3 cm (1.2")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4 cm (1.6"), 3 cm (1.2")

Profile Discretion Rating: 4

The ABU Little Kings was clearly not designed with discretion in mind. It produces a very large diaper bulge at the rear. The diaper bulge at the front isn’t as noticeable but would still be difficult to conceal. Moreover, the prominent cartoonish print is hardly discreet and could be visible wherever the diaper rises above the waistline.

4.1 ABU Little Kings Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 ABU Little Kings Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) 


Noise

Noise Rating: 7

The ABU Little Kings has a thick padding and cloth-like backsheet that go a good way to reduce its noise. Still I found it louder than most diapers with cloth-like backsheets such as the Seni Super Quatro. I attribute the sound largely to the landing zone that is far less flexible and can be noisy during movement. If you can conceal this diaper I generally believe you wouldn’t notice the noise much when out and about.

4.3 ABU Little Kings Noise Profile
 

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 8
The ABU Little Kings is right in line with the ABU PeekABU or NorthShore MegaMax when it comes to odor reduction. I never noticed much in the way of odors and the padding is highly resistant to surface dampness, which helps prevent the formation of odors. The waistbands and snug leg gathers also help with containment of odors. I wouldn’t say it’s the best in the market when it comes to odor reduction, but it’s not far off.


Want to give the ABU Little Kings or Alpha Gators a try?

Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our ABU Little Kings or ABU Alpha Gators affiliate links. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.


Friday, 31 March 2023

TotalDry X-Plus/Bambino Bianco Adult Diaper Review

*For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology. For a list of all product reviews see the Product Index.


 

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.