Z Assy1, D H J Jager2, H S Brand3, F J Bikker3. 1. Department of Oral Biochemistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. z.assy@acta.nl. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Oral Pathology, Amsterdam UMC and Academic Center for Dentistry (ACTA), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Oral Biochemistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we investigated the salivary film thickness and the MUC5B levels at various intra-oral locations in healthy volunteers, with a focus on the palate. Besides, measurements of the palatal surface area were included to explore the possible relationships between the palatal surface area and the palatal salivary film and MUC5B levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The salivary film thickness was determined using filter strips, which were pressed to the mucosal surfaces of five different intra-oral locations; conductance was then analysed using a Periotron. After elution of the strips, the MUC5B levels at various intra-oral locations were determined using ELISA. The palatal surface area was measured using an intra-oral scanner. The surface area was subsequently calculated using the software. RESULTS: The anterior tongue had the thickest salivary film and also the highest levels of MUC5B, while the anterior palate had the thinnest salivary film and lowest MUC5B levels. There was no association between the palatal surface area and the salivary film thickness of the palate. CONCLUSION: The salivary film and MUC5B levels are unequally distributed over the intra-oral regions of the soft tissues. The lack of association between the palatal surface area and the salivary film thickness indicates that a larger surface area is not associated with a relative thinner palatal salivary film. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of the current study increase our understanding of saliva distribution in the oral cavity and could be used as reference values for future studies.
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we investigated the salivary film thickness and the MUC5B levels at various intra-oral locations in healthy volunteers, with a focus on the palate. Besides, measurements of the palatal surface area were included to explore the possible relationships between the palatal surface area and the palatal salivary film and MUC5B levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The salivary film thickness was determined using filter strips, which were pressed to the mucosal surfaces of five different intra-oral locations; conductance was then analysed using a Periotron. After elution of the strips, the MUC5B levels at various intra-oral locations were determined using ELISA. The palatal surface area was measured using an intra-oral scanner. The surface area was subsequently calculated using the software. RESULTS: The anterior tongue had the thickest salivary film and also the highest levels of MUC5B, while the anterior palate had the thinnest salivary film and lowest MUC5B levels. There was no association between the palatal surface area and the salivary film thickness of the palate. CONCLUSION: The salivary film and MUC5B levels are unequally distributed over the intra-oral regions of the soft tissues. The lack of association between the palatal surface area and the salivary film thickness indicates that a larger surface area is not associated with a relative thinner palatal salivary film. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of the current study increase our understanding of saliva distribution in the oral cavity and could be used as reference values for future studies.
Authors: Rashida Pramanik; Samira M Osailan; Stephen J Challacombe; David Urquhart; Gordon B Proctor Journal: Eur J Oral Sci Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.612
Authors: C Dawes; A M L Pedersen; A Villa; J Ekström; G B Proctor; A Vissink; D Aframian; R McGowan; A Aliko; N Narayana; Y W Sia; R K Joshi; S B Jensen; A R Kerr; A Wolff Journal: Arch Oral Biol Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 2.633