4.4 Article

The levels of plasma and salivary antioxidants in the patient with recurrent aphthous stomatitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL PATHOLOGY & MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 7-12

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2004.00253.x

关键词

antioxidants; recurrent aphthhous stomatitis; salivary

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Despite plenty of research, the cause of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) remains obscure. It has been proposed that, the aetiological factors such as local trauma, smoking, vitamin deficiencies and viral infections lead to aphthae formation via final common pathway based on increased oxidative stress. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the antioxidant enzyme superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase (GSHPx) alterations in plasma and saliva, and in addition uric acid (UA) in saliva, in patients with RAS and healthy controls. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with RAS and 30 healthy controls were included into the study. The SOD, CAT, GSHPx and UA levels were measured in plasma and saliva in study and control groups. RESULTS: In the RAS group, although the mean SOD (P < 0.001) and CAT (P < 0.05) levels of plasma were lower, GSHPx (P < 0.001) levels were higher than control group. The salivary concentrations of the SOD (P < 0.001), CAT (P < 0.05) and GSHPx (P < 0.001) in RAS group were entirely opposite to plasma concentrations. UA were not significant between RAS group and controls. CONCLUSION: Since we found salivary SOD and CAT levels were high whereas plasma levels were low, it has been thought that, salivary defence mechanisms via antioxidant agents may be stimulated against to the ulcerous lesion. We consider that the organism might mobilize the antioxidant potential to the sites where they were needed. At this point, decrease of SOD and CAT levels in the plasma may be related to this shift. It is also thought that GSHPx secretion in the saliva may also be increased but the increase in its turnover may be responsible for the diminished activity.

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

4.4
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