Results of the volume of the submandibular gland in an epidemiologic cohort

Niendorf, Sandra; Koch, Carmela; Völzke, Henry; Langner, Sönke; Hosemann, Werner; Beule, Achim Georg

doi:10.1055/s-0040-1710848

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar sex-specific positive associations of male sex and volume for the large cephalic salivary glands were also found by Li, Heo, Niendorf, and Mahne et al [ 12 , 13 , 15 , 37 ]. The reason for parotid gland volume differences by sex is not entirely clear.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Population Based Average Parotid Gland Volume and Prevalence of Incidental Tumors in T1-MRI

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Representative epidemiologic data on the average volume of the parotid gland in a large population-based MRI survey is non-existent. Within the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP), we examined the parotid gland in 1725 non-contrast MRI-scans in T1 weighted sequence of axial layers. Thus, a reliable standard operating procedure (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient > 0.8) could be established. In this study, we found an average, single sided parotid gland volume of 27.82 cm3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 27.15 to 28.50) in male and 21.60 cm3 (95% CI 21.16 to 22.05) in female subjects. We observed positive associations for age, body mass index (BMI), as well as male sex with parotid gland size in a multivariate model. The prevalence of incidental tumors within the parotid gland regardless of dignity was 3.94% in the Northeast German population, slightly higher than assumed. Further epidemiologic investigations regarding primary salivary gland diseases are necessary.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Li, Ono and Heo et al have observed the same positive association between age and gland volume [ 13 , 15 , 36 ]. For the submandibular salivary glands, this effect was also described by Niendorf and Saito et al [ 34 , 37 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%