Individual Diagnosis, Prognosis and Counselling for Caries Prevention

Ericsson, Yngve; Hardwick, Leslie

doi:10.1159/000260369

Cited by 124 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Ericsson and Harwick,[50] a flow rate of stimulated saliva greater than 1 ml min –1 is considered normal. This is the case for the flow rate of EWPS and non-smoker groups (Table 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary findings on the correlation of saliva pH, buffering capacity, flow rate and consistency in relation to waterpipe tobacco smoking

Khemiss

Khelifa

Saad

2017

Libyan Journal of Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present comparative study was to compare some salivary characteristics between exclusive waterpipe smokers (EWPS) and non-smokers. 72 males (36 EWPS) were recruited. The volume of stimulated saliva was determined and divided by the duration of saliva collection. The pH was measured directly using a pH meter. The buffering capacity was determined using a quantitative method which involved the addition of 10 µl HCl. Up to a total of 160 µL was titrated up to obtain a pH titration curve. At 50 µL of titrated HCl, buffering capacity was ranked into three categories: high, medium and low. EWPS and non-smoker groups had similar flow rates (1.81 ± 0.79 and 1.78 ± 1.14 mL min-1) and similar baseline pH (6.60 ± 0.37 and 6.76 ± 0.39). Statistically significant differences in the two groups’ pH were observed from 30 to 160 µL of titrated up HCl. At 50 µL of titrated up HCl, the EWPS group compared to the non-smoker group had a significantly higher pH (4.79 ± 0.72 vs. 5.32 ± 0.79). To conclude, waterpipe tobacco smoking alters the buffering capacity but does not alter either salivary flow rates or the baseline pH and consistency.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary findings on the correlation of saliva pH, buffering capacity, flow rate and consistency in relation to waterpipe tobacco smoking

Khemiss

Khelifa

Saad

2017

Libyan Journal of Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…UWS values of ≤0.10 ml/min and SWS values of ≤0.70 ml/min were designated hyposalivation [42]. Patients with UWS flow rates below 0.20 ml/min were designated as low secretors [44]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral symptoms and salivary findings in oral lichen planus, oral lichenoid lesions and stomatitis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo examine if patients with oral lichen planus, oral lichenoid lesions and generalised stomatitis and concomitant contact allergy have more frequent and severe xerostomia, lower unstimulated and chewing-stimulated saliva and citric-acid-stimulated parotid saliva flow rates, and higher salivary concentration of total protein and sIgA than cases without contact allergy and healthy controls.MethodsForty-nine patients (42 women, aged 61.0 ± 10.3 years) and 29 healthy age- and gender-matched subjects underwent a standardised questionnaire on general and oral health, assessment of xerostomia, clinical examination, sialometry, mucosal biopsy and contact allergy testing.ResultsNineteen patients had oral lichen planus, 19 patients had oral lichenoid lesions and 11 patients had generalised stomatitis. 38.8% had contact allergy. Xerostomia was significantly more common and severe in patients (46.9%) than in healthy controls, whereas the saliva flow rates did not differ. The patients had higher sIgA levels in unstimulated and chewing-stimulated saliva than the healthy controls. The total protein concentration in saliva was lower in the unstimulated saliva samples whereas it was higher in the chewing stimulated saliva samples from patients when compared to healthy controls. The differences were not significant and they were irrespective of the presence of contact allergy.ConclusionXerostomia is prevalent in patients with oral lichen planus, lichenoid lesions and generalised stomatitis, but not associated with salivary gland hypofunction, numbers of systemic diseases or medications, contact allergy, age, or gender. Salivary sIgA levels were higher in patients than in healthy controls, but did not differ between patient groups. The total salivary protein concentration was lower in unstimulated saliva samples and higher in chewing-stimulated saliva samples in patients than in healthy controls, but did not differ between patient groups. Our findings do not aid in the discrimination between OLP and OLL and these conditions with or without contact allergic reactions.

show abstract

“…32 Some authors consider hyposalivation to be at a stimulated salivary flow with a rate lower than 0.7 ml/min, 24 whereas others consider 0.5 ml/min to be the cutoff point. 33 Ericsson and Hardwick 23 propose three categories for mean stimulated salivary flow: > 0.7 ml/min, very low; 0.7-1.0 ml/min, low; and 1 ml/min, normal. However, such limits are not well established.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stimulated salivary flow was categorized as normal (> 1 ml/min), low (0.7-1.0 ml/min) or very low (< 0.7 ml/min). 23,24 Hyposalivation was considered when a participant had low salivary flow (≤ 1 ml/min).…”

Section: Stimulated Salivary Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between crack cocaine use and reduced salivary flow

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Crack cocaine use appears to have an impact on oral conditions. However, changes in the salivary flow among crack users have not been fully clarified. The aim of this study was to compare stimulated salivary flow and the occurrence of hyposalivation between crack users and non-users. A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 40 crack users and 40 controls matched for sex, age, and smoking habits. Interviews were conducted to acquire data on the perception of dry mouth (xerostomia) and drug use. Stimulated salivary flow was determined using the spitting method. A significant reduction in stimulated salivary flow was found among crack users in comparison to non-users (1.02 vs. 1.59 ml/min). A total of 42.5% and 15% of crack users had very low and low stimulated salivary flow, respectively. Moreover, 65% of users reported xerostomia in comparison to 37.5% non-users (p < 0.012). No significant association was found between xerostomia and hyposalivation (p = 0.384). A multivariate analysis revealed that individuals older than 26 years of age, those with a low household income, and crack users (prevalence ratio: 2.59) had a significant association with the occurrence of hyposalivation. A significant association was found between the use of crack and reduced salivary flow. The use of crack was associated with the occurrence of hyposalivation in the multivariate analysis.

show abstract

Individual Diagnosis, Prognosis and Counselling for Caries Prevention

Cited by 124 publications

References 9 publications

Preliminary findings on the correlation of saliva pH, buffering capacity, flow rate and consistency in relation to waterpipe tobacco smoking

Preliminary findings on the correlation of saliva pH, buffering capacity, flow rate and consistency in relation to waterpipe tobacco smoking

Oral symptoms and salivary findings in oral lichen planus, oral lichenoid lesions and stomatitis

Association between crack cocaine use and reduced salivary flow

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About