4.6 Article

Laser Doppler flowmeter measurement of relative gingival and forehead skin blood flow in light and heavy smokers during and after smoking

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 27, 期 4, 页码 236-242

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027004236.x

关键词

smoking; laser Doppler flowmetry; relative blood flow; cotinine; gingiva; human

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To determine the effect of the smoking experience on relative blood flow in gingiva and to compare this to skin. Method: A laser Doppler flowmeter was used to record relative blood how to healthy gingiva and to forehead skin in smokers and nun-smoking controls. Smoking status was verified by quantitative analysis of serum cotinine. Continuous measurements were made over sequential periods with the subject at rest, during a sham smoking exercise, during smoking of a standard research cigarette (2R1, University of Kentucky) for 5 min and throughout a subsequent recovery period. Non-smoking controls sham smoked during the equivalent 5 minute smoking period. Results: No significant differences with respect to the proportional changes of relative gingival blood flow between time points were observed between the groups. However, between-group comparisons of relative blood flow revealed a significant increase in the relative blood flow to the forehead skin of light smokers (serum cotinine less than or equal to 60 ng/ml: n=6), when compared to heavy smokers (serum cotinine greater than or equal to 100 ng/ml; n=9) or to non-smokers (serum cotinine less than or equal to 10 ng/ml; n=6), 2 min following the smoking experience (p=0.007). Conclusion: The results do not seem to support the theory that tobacco smoking causes localised vasoconstriction in the periodontal tissues in humans. These data show that smoking causes an acute increase in relative blood flow in forehead skin in light smokers compared to heavy smokers, suggesting a potential induction of tolerance in regular users of tobacco.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据