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

Abstract

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.

Salivary parameters among Arabian snuff (Shammah) users

“…Variable results regarding SFR have been reported among users of various tobacco types. 20 , 35 - 38 On the other hand, and in contrast to our results, reduced SFR has been shown to be associated with dental caries in some studies. 28 , 29 , 35…”

“… 12 Moreover, salivary pH values have been found to be significantly decreased with increased duration of use and time of exposure to SLT and with the presence of SLT-induced oral lesions whether precancerous or cancerous. 21 Voelker et al 18 and Khemiss et al 20 on the other hand, reported lower BC, but not pH values among cigarette and waterpipe smokers, respectively.…”

“…15 In other words, alterations in these parameters can jeopardize saliva’s entire function and hence, endanger the integrity of the oral and systemic health. 16 , 17 These parameters have been previously evaluated with respect to cigarette 12 , 13 , 18 , 19 and waterpipe smoking 20 and some forms of SLT 12 , 21 but not yet with respect to shammah use. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate the SFR, pH, and BC among healthy shammah users (SU) in comparison to healthy non-shammah users (NSU).…”

The correlation between pH and flow rate of salivary smokers related to nicotine levels labelled on cigarettes

“…Consequently, the salivary pH will decrease since carbohydrates contained can be utilized by acidogenic bacteria for fermentation, and yield as the product of the bacterial fermentation is acidic, making the oral cavity become acidic. 28 In addition, changes in salivary pH may also be affected by changes in bicarbonate structures in saliva and biological rhythms. 29 As a result, changes in salivary pH in smokers is usually triggered by changes in electrolytes and ions in saliva, especially bicarbonate structures.…”

Relationship between physicochemical properties of saliva and dental caries and periodontal status among female teachers living in Central Iran

“…Saliva can be assessed by some characteristics, such as flow rate, buffering capacity, hydrogen-ion concentration (pH), and its consistency. [ 3 5 6 7 8 9 ] Alteration in any of these characters may increase the risk of caries. [ 10 ] Saliva can buffer acids, and this ability is essential for maintaining pH values in the oral cavity.…”