9%), with means ± SD unstimulated salivary flow rate of 0.15 ± 0.1 mL/min compared to 0.36 ± 0.2 mL/min for group B (P < 0.01). Stimulated salivary flow rate was similar by both groups and above 2.0 mL/min. Saliva pH was 6.0 ± 0.8 for group A and significantly different from 7.0 ± 0.6 for group B (P < 0.01). Salivary calcium was 14.7 ± 8.1 mg/L for group A and significantly higher than 9.9 ± 6.4 mg/L for group B (P < 0.01). Except for elevated calcium concentrations in saliva, salivary parameters favoring caries such as low saliva pH and unstimulated salivary flow rate were observed in T1DM individuals.]]>

Background Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) it is characterized by burning and uncomfortable sensations with no clinical alterations or laboratory findings. The evaluation of the salivary characteristics of people with BMS can help the understanding of the pathogenesis of this condition. This case-control study aimed to trace the salivary profile of women with burning mouth syndrome (BMS). Material and Methods 40 women with BMS and 40 control women were recruited. Unstimulated salivary flow rate (uSFR), pH, salivary cortisol levels, salivary viscosity, and oral health impact profile (OHIP-14 questioner) were determined. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results For uSFR, mean values obtained for BMS and for control group respectively were 0.35 and 0.61 mL/min; for pH, 7.23 and 7.34; for cortisol levels, 0.36 and 0.15 μg/dL; for viscosity values, 31.1 and 45.01 mPas and for OHIP-14 scores, 21.7 and 5.7. To uSFR, cortisol levels, viscosity values and OHIP-14 scores, differences were statistically significant. Salivary cortisol levels and OHIP-14 scores were correlated positively (rho = 0.624; p < 0.05). Conclusions BMS women have lower uSFR and salivary viscosity and higher salivary cortisol levels that were associated with worse quality of life, compared with the control group. Key words: Xerostomia, Burning mouth syndrome, Viscosity.

Ameloblastoma is an uncommon, locally aggressive benign odontogenic tumor and can reach considerable dimensions causing facial deformity and functional impairment. They are characterized by local aggressiveness. It is recommended that maxillary ameloblastomas be treated aggressively due to proximity of various vital structures. Conservative treatments such as marsupialization, enucleation and curettage while preserving bone integrity seem to be associated with a high rate of recurrence. Treatment evaluation of ameloblastomas is a complex issue, as ideally it should not be so destructive due to the benign nature of this lesion, but should be extensive enough to avoid recurrences. The present study is about a clinical case of a 16-year- old man with a unicystic ameloblastoma treated successfully with marsupialization. Patient was followed up every 12 months. About 13 years after diagnosis, the patient is clinically healthy and radiographically it is possible to observe evidence of bone repair. Key words:Odontogenic tumors, ameloblastoma, marsupialization, unicystic.