OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure lower esophageal sphincter pressure, sphincter length, and esophageal motility in patients with dental erosion and compare the results with measurements made in patients without gastroesophageal reflux or dental erosion. STUDY DESIGN: Lower esophageal sphincter length and esophageal motility were measured in 39 patients (age range, 15-74 years) with dental erosion through use of static esophageal pressure monitoring; the data were compared with those from 10 control subjects (age range, 26-46 years) with nonparametric statistical tests. RESULTS: Median lower esophageal sphincter pressure was 9 mmHg (range, 0-26 mmHg) in the patients with erosion and 9.5 mmHg (range, 0 -14 mmHg) in the controls; there was no statistically significant difference between the two subject groups. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in esophageal length between the subject groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups (P =.01) in the measurement of esophageal motility; the median value was 8% (range, 0% to 100%) in the patients with erosion and 0% (range, 0% to 18%) in the controls. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that esophageal motility in patients with dental erosion is more likely to be associated with low amplitude changes than with sphincter pressure alone. Poor esophageal motility may therefore be a risk factor in regurgitation erosion.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure lower esophageal sphincter pressure, sphincter length, and esophageal motility in patients with dental erosion and compare the results with measurements made in patients without gastroesophageal reflux or dental erosion. STUDY DESIGN: Lower esophageal sphincter length and esophageal motility were measured in 39 patients (age range, 15-74 years) with dental erosion through use of static esophageal pressure monitoring; the data were compared with those from 10 control subjects (age range, 26-46 years) with nonparametric statistical tests. RESULTS: Median lower esophageal sphincter pressure was 9 mmHg (range, 0-26 mmHg) in the patients with erosion and 9.5 mmHg (range, 0 -14 mmHg) in the controls; there was no statistically significant difference between the two subject groups. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in esophageal length between the subject groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups (P =.01) in the measurement of esophageal motility; the median value was 8% (range, 0% to 100%) in the patients with erosion and 0% (range, 0% to 18%) in the controls. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that esophageal motility in patients with dental erosion is more likely to be associated with low amplitude changes than with sphincter pressure alone. Poor esophageal motility may therefore be a risk factor in regurgitation erosion.
Authors: Philipp Körner; Luca Georgis; Daniel B Wiedemeier; Thomas Attin; Florian J Wegehaupt Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 2.757