IADR Abstract Archives
Effects of tobacco use on salivary parameters
Objectives: To compare the salivary flow rate, pH and buffering capacity between exclusive cigarette smokers (ECS) and Non Smokers (Non-S).
Methods: Tunisian male students aged 20-29 years (ECS; n=29) or (Non-S ; n=33) were recruited to participate in this comparative study. Stimulated saliva (SS) was collected for five minutes. The volume of SS was determined and divided by the duration of saliva collection. Then, 0.5 mL of each saliva sample was placed in a tube. The pH was measured directly using a pHmeter. The buffering capacity was determined using a quantitative method which involves the addition of ten microliters hydrochloric acid (HCl). Up to a total of 160 µl was titrated to obtain a pH titration curve. At 50 µl of titrated HCl, buffering capacity was ranked into three categories: high, medium and low. T student and chi square tests were used to compare respectively quantitative and qualitative data.
Results: The two groups were age-, remaining teeth-, PI- and DMFT- matched. ECS and Non-S groups have similar flow rates (1.86±0.81 and 1.74±1.21 ml/mn, respectively) and baseline pH (6.44±0.33 and 6.65±0.45, respectively). Statistical significant differences in the two groups’ pH were observed from 30 to 160 µl of titrated HCl. At 50 µl of titrated HCl, the ECS group compared to the Non-S one had a significantly lower pH (respectively, 4.76±0.79 vs. 5.26±0.81; p=0.018).
Conclusions: As saliva plays an important role in protecting teeth, dentists are urged to inform their patients of the harmful effects of tobacco use on oral health.
Methods: Tunisian male students aged 20-29 years (ECS; n=29) or (Non-S ; n=33) were recruited to participate in this comparative study. Stimulated saliva (SS) was collected for five minutes. The volume of SS was determined and divided by the duration of saliva collection. Then, 0.5 mL of each saliva sample was placed in a tube. The pH was measured directly using a pHmeter. The buffering capacity was determined using a quantitative method which involves the addition of ten microliters hydrochloric acid (HCl). Up to a total of 160 µl was titrated to obtain a pH titration curve. At 50 µl of titrated HCl, buffering capacity was ranked into three categories: high, medium and low. T student and chi square tests were used to compare respectively quantitative and qualitative data.
Results: The two groups were age-, remaining teeth-, PI- and DMFT- matched. ECS and Non-S groups have similar flow rates (1.86±0.81 and 1.74±1.21 ml/mn, respectively) and baseline pH (6.44±0.33 and 6.65±0.45, respectively). Statistical significant differences in the two groups’ pH were observed from 30 to 160 µl of titrated HCl. At 50 µl of titrated HCl, the ECS group compared to the Non-S one had a significantly lower pH (respectively, 4.76±0.79 vs. 5.26±0.81; p=0.018).
Conclusions: As saliva plays an important role in protecting teeth, dentists are urged to inform their patients of the harmful effects of tobacco use on oral health.