A Study of the Relationship between Salivary Buffer Capacity and DMFT

Gotouda, Hiroya; Sasai, Hirofumi; Taguchi, Chieko; Wang, Jing; Arikawa, Kazumune; Uchiyama, Toshikazu; Yamauchi, Rio; Kobayashi, Seigo

doi:10.5466/ijoms.4.103

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current study, BC, but not pH, was negatively associated with DMFT. Similar findings have been reported by others 26 , 27 knowing that they did not assess salivary pH. Others have reported negative correlations of DMFT with pH 28 , 29 knowing that they did not assess salivary BC.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Salivary parameters among Arabian snuff (Shammah) users

Alakhali

Halboub

Mujam

et al. 2017

SMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:To evaluate the salivary flow rate (SFR), pH, and buffer capacity (BC) among healthy shammah users (SU) in comparison with healthy non-shammah users (NSU).Methods:This case-control study was conducted at the College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia between March 2016 and May 2017. A sample of 27 SU and 30 NSU were recruited. Unstimulated saliva was collected and SFR, pH, and BC were determined. Dental health was assessed using the decay-missing-filled teeth (DMFT) index.Results:Shammah users were slightly older than NSU (28.9±6.9 versus 24.9±4.3 years). Salivary flow rate was not significantly different, but pH (6.68±0.46) and BC (5.7±2.07) were significantly lower in SU users than in NSU (7±0.37; p=0.002 versus 8.1±1.47; p<0.001). Conversely, the DMFT in SU users was significantly higher (7.96±5.17) compared to that of NSU (4.53±3.46; p=0.007). Salivary pH and BC were significantly and directly correlated (rs= 0.576). The former was significantly and directly correlated with SFR (rs= 0.404), but the latter was not. In contrast, BC inversely correlated with decay (rs= -0.385) and DMFT (rs= -0.399).Conclusions:Shammah use is associated with alterations in saliva quality (pH and BC). It is also associated with poor dental health either through a direct effect or mediation by altered salivary parameters.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Salivary parameters among Arabian snuff (Shammah) users

Alakhali

Halboub

Mujam

et al. 2017

SMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The role of saliva as a host factor is especially important. The mechanisms by which saliva protects against dental caries include its buffering action, so a buffering capacity test is commonly used in the clinical setting (2,9,(12)(13)(14)(15)(16).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Buffering Capacity of Resting Saliva and Caries Prevalence for Caries Risk Assessment

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Saliva stimulated by chewing gum is often used as a sample in buffering capacity testing.However, cases are observed whereby the collection of the stimulated saliva from young children, the disabled, and the elderly is difficult, and an investigation to establish a method for saliva collection is considered necessary. Although the testing of the buffering capacity using resting saliva or residual saliva in the oral cavity as samples is considered useful, 1 mL or more of saliva is used in the measurements, and the collection of this sample is seen to be difficult. Accordingly, it is desirable to measure buffering capacity by a small volume of resting saliva. Until now, there have been few epidemiological studies investigating the association of the buffering capacity with caries prevalence in a large group in order to verify the efficacy of this parameter for risk assessment on using a small amount of resting saliva. In this research, the usefulness was investigated by means of analyzing the relationship between the buffering capacity for a small volume of resting saliva and DMF.The mean of DMF in the high buffer capacity group was significantly lower from that in the moderate buffer capacity group (p < 0.05) and the low buffer capacity group (p < 0.01).These results suggest that determination of the buffering capacity employing a small amount of resting saliva was useful and that the risk of dental caries could be assessed by measuring the salivary buffering capacity using residual saliva in the mouth as the sample.

show abstract