H Islas-Granillo1, S A Borges-Yañez2, C E Medina-Solís3, C A Galan-Vidal4, J J Navarrete-Hernández1, M Escoffié-Ramirez5, G Maupomé6. 1. Academic Area of Dentistry, Health Sciences Institute, Autonomous University, Hidalgo State, Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico. 2. DEPeI School of Dentistry, National Autonomous University of Mexico, México, DF. 3. Avenida Álamo # 204, Fraccionamiento Paseo de los Solares, Colonia Santiago Tlapacoya, CP. 42110, Pachuca de Soto, Hidalgo, México. cemedinas@yahoo.com. 4. Academic Area of Chemistry, Basic Sciences and Engineering Institute, Autonomous University of Hidalgo State, Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico. 5. Faculty of Dentistry, Autonomous University of Yucatan, Mérida, Yucatán, México. 6. Indiana University/Purdue University at Indianapolis School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA; The Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare a limited array of chewing-stimulated saliva features (salivary flow, pH and buffer capacity) in a sample of elderly Mexicans with clinical, sociodemographic and socio-economic variables. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in 139 adults, 60 years old and older, from two retirement homes and a senior day care centre in the city of Pachuca, Mexico. Sociodemographic, socio-economic and behavioural variables were collected through a questionnaire. A trained and standardized examiner obtained the oral clinical variables. Chewing-stimulated saliva (paraffin method) was collected and the salivary flow rate, pH and buffer capacity were measured. The analysis was performed using non-parametric tests in Stata 9.0. RESULTS: Mean age was 79.1 ± 9.8 years. Most of the subjects included were women (69.1%). Mean chewing-stimulated salivary flow was 0.75 ± 0.80 mL/minute, and the pH and buffer capacity were 7.88 ± 0.83 and 4.20 ± 1.24, respectively. Mean chewing-stimulated salivary flow varied (p < 0.05) across type of retirement home, tooth brushing frequency, number of missing teeth and use of dental prostheses. pH varied across the type of retirement home (p < 0.05) and marginally by age (p = 0.087); buffer capacity (p < 0.05) varied across type of retirement home, tobacco consumption and the number of missing teeth. CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory data add to the body of knowledge with regard to chewing-stimulated salivary features (salivary flow rate, pH and buffer capacity) and outline the variability of those features across selected sociodemographic, socio-economic and behavioural variables in a group of Mexican elders.
OBJECTIVE: To compare a limited array of chewing-stimulated saliva features (salivary flow, pH and buffer capacity) in a sample of elderly Mexicans with clinical, sociodemographic and socio-economic variables. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in 139 adults, 60 years old and older, from two retirement homes and a senior day care centre in the city of Pachuca, Mexico. Sociodemographic, socio-economic and behavioural variables were collected through a questionnaire. A trained and standardized examiner obtained the oral clinical variables. Chewing-stimulated saliva (paraffin method) was collected and the salivary flow rate, pH and buffer capacity were measured. The analysis was performed using non-parametric tests in Stata 9.0. RESULTS: Mean age was 79.1 ± 9.8 years. Most of the subjects included were women (69.1%). Mean chewing-stimulated salivary flow was 0.75 ± 0.80 mL/minute, and the pH and buffer capacity were 7.88 ± 0.83 and 4.20 ± 1.24, respectively. Mean chewing-stimulated salivary flow varied (p < 0.05) across type of retirement home, tooth brushing frequency, number of missing teeth and use of dental prostheses. pH varied across the type of retirement home (p < 0.05) and marginally by age (p = 0.087); buffer capacity (p < 0.05) varied across type of retirement home, tobacco consumption and the number of missing teeth. CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory data add to the body of knowledge with regard to chewing-stimulated salivary features (salivary flow rate, pH and buffer capacity) and outline the variability of those features across selected sociodemographic, socio-economic and behavioural variables in a group of Mexican elders.
Authors: C Fenoll-Palomares; J V Muñoz Montagud; V Sanchiz; B Herreros; V Hernández; M Mínguez; A Benages Journal: Rev Esp Enferm Dig Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 2.086
Authors: Mohammed S Al-Ak'hali; Esam S Halboub; Osama H Mujam; Noor M Alahmar; Salehah A Jerah; Fahad A Mutawwam Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Carlo Eduardo Medina-Solís; Leticia Ávila-Burgos; María de Lourdes Márquez-Corona; June Janette Medina-Solís; Salvador Eduardo Lucas-Rincón; Socorro Aida Borges-Yañez; Miguel Ángel Fernández-Barrera; América Patricia Pontigo-Loyola; Gerardo Maupomé Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Liza L Ramenzoni; Marc P Lehner; Manuela E Kaufmann; Daniel Wiedemeier; Thomas Attin; Patrick R Schmidlin Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-03-22
Authors: Danilo Lopes Ferreira Lima; Sandro Dias Rocha Mendes Carneiro; Fladia Taciana de Sousa Barbosa; Maria Vieira de Lima Saintrain; Jean André Hervé Moizan; Jean Doucet Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 3.240