Premium
A modified device for collection and flow‐rate measurement of submandibular‐sublingual saliva
Author(s) -
Nederfors Tommy,
Dahlöf Carl
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
european journal of oral sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.802
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1600-0722
pISSN - 0909-8836
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1993.tb01106.x
Subject(s) - morning , saliva , analysis of variance , chemistry , dentistry , zoology , medicine , biology
The aims of the present study were to measure stimulated submandibular‐sublingual (SM‐SL) salivary flow rate with a modified Block‐Brottman collection device, and, further, to evaluate the reliability of measurements of stimulated SM‐SL salivary flow rate by means of this modified Block‐Brottman device, as compared to measurements of parotid flow rate using modified Carlson‐Crittenden cups. Twenty‐nine healthy female volunteers, aged 36±7 yr, were included. Saliva stimulation was achieved by application of a 3% citric acid solution to the rims of the tongue four times/min, for 3 s every 15 s. On 3 consecutive days, stimulated parotid and SM‐SL salivas were collected for 2 min at 07.30, before breakfast (morning value), and at 10.00, 2 h after a standard breakfast (lunchtime values). SM‐SL saliva was also collected on one occasion for 2 min ± 3. For parotid and SM‐SL saliva, the mean stimulated flow rates were in the morning, 1.50±0.83 and 2.25±1.12 ml/min, and at lunchtime, 1.71±1.16 and 2.54±1.01 ml/min, respectively. For both salivas, lunchtime values were significantly higher than morning values by about 13–14%. Comparing parotid and SM‐SL saliva flow rates, we found the SM‐SL saliva flow rate to exceed the parotid flow rate by about 50% both in the morning and at lunchtime. Variations in flow rate were analyzed by means of ANOVA. Interindividual variance and variance between measurement days and times of day made up 88% of parotid and 83% of SM‐SL total variance. By calculating the variation coefficient, we found this to be smaller for SM‐SL salivary flow rate measurements as compared to parotid flow rate measurements. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that our method of collecting stimulated submandibular‐sublingual saliva by means of a modified Block‐Brottman collection device is as reliable as the method of collecting stimulated parotid saliva by means of modified Carlson‐Crittenden cups, and is thus a useful method for future studies of changes in submandibular‐sublingual salivary production.