Literature DB >> 9015566

Measurement and comparison of the residual saliva on various oral mucosal and dentition surfaces in humans.

T DiSabato-Mordarski1, I Kleinberg.   

Abstract

Using a paper-strip absorption method, the amounts of residual saliva on 20 soft-tissue sites in different regions of the mouths of 20 individuals were surveyed once in the morning after a 12-h fast and again approx. 1-2 h after lunch. After swallowing, saliva at each site was immediately collected on filter-paper strips in a dipstick fashion for 5 s and the volumes were measured electronically with a Periotron micro-moisture meter. A clear pattern of wetness was evident and was almost identical for fasting and postprandial determinations. The hard palate and labial mucosa were covered with the least residual saliva; the floor of the mouth and back of the tongue were the wettest. In the same 20 participants, the amounts of residual saliva on various dentition sites were next measured and, as expected, much higher residual amounts were found in approximal embrasures and occlusal fossae than on adjacent facial or lingual smooth areas. Molars gave higher values than premolar and incisor embrasures. To relate residual saliva dipstick volumes to saliva thickness values, filter-paper strips were applied flat against the same mucosal or dentition surfaces in 10 of the participants, and the volume of the saliva absorbed was measured electronically as before. As the areas of the strips used were known, saliva thicknesses could be calculated. These ranged from 0.01 mm on the hard palate to 0.07 mm on the posterior of the dorsum of the tongue. For the incisor teeth, the calculated residual saliva thickness determined in the same way was about 0.01-0.02 mm. Blotting values plotted against dipstick values for oral sites where blotting could be readily performed showed a linear relation, which could be used as a standard curve to enable the easily done dipstick measurements in microlitres to be converted to saliva thicknesses in millimeters. As blotting could not be done in embrasures and occlusal fossae, this paper-strip absorption method was unsuitable for similar quantification of residual saliva in these sites but was done in another way described elsewhere. Overall, the results indicated that variations in dental morphology, and in the saliva secreted and available to the different oral regions, are the basic factors responsible for the wide variations in residual amounts of saliva seen on the diverse hard- and soft-tissue surfaces of human mouths. Also, finding that the hard palate and inner lips are covered by very thin films of residual saliva suggested that only a small reduction in their quantity would be needed to trigger the dry mouth sensation in hyposalivators.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 9015566     DOI: 10.1016/s0003-9969(96)00055-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Oral Biol        ISSN: 0003-9969            Impact factor:   2.633


  10 in total

1.  Oral dryness and moisture degree at the lingual but not buccal mucosa predict prognosis in end-of-life cancer patients.

Authors:  Maiko Shimosato; Naoki Sakane
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Anti-caries effect of CPP-ACP in irradiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.

Authors:  Christina P C Sim; Joseph Wee; Ying Xu; Yin-Bun Cheung; Yoke-Lim Soong; David J Manton
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Frogs use a viscoelastic tongue and non-Newtonian saliva to catch prey.

Authors:  Alexis C Noel; Hao-Yuan Guo; Mark Mandica; David L Hu
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.118

4.  Salivary film thickness and MUC5B levels at various intra-oral surfaces.

Authors:  Z Assy; D H J Jager; H S Brand; F J Bikker
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-08-09       Impact factor: 3.606

5.  Influence of mouth breathing on outcome of scaling and root planing in chronic periodontitis.

Authors:  Manpreet Kaur; Rajinder Kumar Sharma; Shikha Tewari; Satish Chander Narula
Journal:  BDJ Open       Date:  2018-11-09

6.  Differences in perceived intra-oral dryness in various dry-mouth patients as determined using the Regional Oral Dryness Inventory.

Authors:  Z Assy; C P Bots; H Z Arisoy; S S Gülveren; F J Bikker; H S Brand
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Ratiometric imaging of extracellular pH in Streptococcus mutans biofilms exposed to different flow velocities and saliva film thicknesses.

Authors:  Mathilde Frost Kristensen; Ellen Frandsen Lau; Sebastian Schlafer
Journal:  J Oral Microbiol       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 5.474

8.  Signs of oral dryness in relation to salivary flow rate, pH, buffering capacity and dry mouth complaints.

Authors:  Najat M A Farsi
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2007-11-09       Impact factor: 2.757

9.  Sialometry of upper labial minor glands: a clinical approach by the use of weighing method Schirmer's test strips paper.

Authors:  Denise Pinheiro Falcão; Soraya Coelho Leal; Celi Novaes Vieira; Andy Wolff; Tayana Filgueira Galdino Almeida; Fernanda de Paula e Silva Nunes; Rivadávio Fernandes Batista de Amorim; Ana Cristina Bezerra
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2014-03-09

10.  The association between oral dryness and use of dry-mouth interventions in Sjögren's syndrome patients.

Authors:  Z Assy; F J Bikker; O Picauly; H S Brand
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-08-10       Impact factor: 3.573

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.