4.4 Article

Characteristic changes of saliva and taste in burning mouth syndrome patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL PATHOLOGY & MEDICINE
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 231-236

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jop.12350

关键词

antioxidant capacity; burning mouth syndrome; saliva; Secretory IgA; taste

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K12323] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundBurning mouth syndrome (BMS) is characterized by chronic pain with a burning sensation of the tongue and oral mucosa and reported to be often accompanied by subjective xerostomia and dysgeusia. Since the etiology of BMS has not been elucidated, to understand the characteristics of BMS, we measured some components of saliva and taste sensitivity and compared the measured values between BMS and healthy subjects. MethodsUnstimulated saliva was collected from 15 female BMS patients and 30 healthy women. The flow rate, viscosity (spinnability) and concentration of secretory IgA (SIgA) of saliva and serum antioxidant capacity were measured. The recognition thresholds for sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and umami tastes were measured by whole-mouth method. The statistical analyses were performed using Student's t-test, and P<0.05 was considered to be significant. ResultsIn BMS group, the flow rate of saliva was significantly lower and the spinnability was significantly higher compared with healthy group. The secreted amount of SIgA per min and serum antioxidant capacity was significantly lower in the patients. The threshold for sourness in patients was significantly higher, while those for other tastes did not differ from healthy group. ConclusionsBMS patients showed lower salivary flow and higher salivary spinnability. These results together with decreased SIgA amount, suggest that BMS may be relevant to the deterioration of salivary condition, which could in turn affect taste function. Furthermore, the lower antioxidant capacity in patient's serum suggests that it can serve as a diagnostic tool for BMS.

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