J Korean Acad Oral Health.  2012 Dec;36(4):303-308.

Analysis on saliva of head and neck cancer patients

• Jeong K
• Lim H

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
This study is performed to evaluate the salivary secretion, salivary pH and cariogenic activity in head and neck cancer patients.
METHODS
Thirty patients (26 male, 4 female) who had head and neck cancer and were treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and 28 normal volunteers (9 male, 19 female) as a control were included. The mean age of the patients group and control group were 55.9 years and 51.6 years, respectively. The patients group was examined of salivary secretion, salivary pH, and cariogenic activity, and was compared with the control group.
RESULTS
In comparison with the control group, salivary secretion, salivary pH and cariogenic activity were lower, significantly, in head and neck cancer patients (P<0.01). There are negative correlations between cariogenic activity and salivary secretion (r=-0.364, P<0.01), cariogenic activity and salivary pH (r=-0.534, P<0.01) in head and neck cancer patients, and cariogenic activity and salivary pH (r=-0.413, P<0.05) in the control group. There are positive correlations between salivary pH and salivary secretion (r=0.409, P<0.01) in head and neck cancer patients.
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that salivary secretion and salivary pH are reduced; cariogenic activity is increased in head and neck cancer patients. Such salivary factor and cariogenic activity can increase the possibility of induction of dental caries.

Keyword

Cariogenic activity; Head and neck cancer; pH; Unstimulated whole saliva

MeSH Terms

Dental Caries
Head
Head and Neck Neoplasms
Humans
Hydrogen-Ion Concentration
Male
Saliva

Reference

1. Lee JH, Kim JS. Oral physiology. 2003. 4th ed. Seoul: Koonja publish;183–209.

2. Pedersen AM, Nauntofte B. Primary Sjögren's syndrome: oral aspects on pathogenesis, diagnostic criteria, clinical features and approaches for therapy. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2001. 2:1415–1436.

3. Sreebny LM, Valdini A. Xerostomia. A neglected symptom. Arch Intern Med. 1987. 147:1333–1337.

4. Turhal NS, Erdal S, Karacay S. Efficacy of treatment to relieve mucositis-induced discomfort. Support Care Cancer. 2000. 8:55–58.

5. Epstein JB, Tsang AH, Warkentin D, Ship JA. The role of salivary function in modulating chemotherapy-induced oropharyngeal mucositis: a review of the literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002. 94:39–44.

6. Silverman S Jr. Oral cancer: complications of therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999. 88:122–126.

7. Bradshaw DJ, Marsh PD. Analysis of pH-driven disruption of oral microbial communities in vitro. Caries Res. 1998. 32:456–462.

8. Bratthall D. A Streptococcus mutans safari! J Dent Res. 1997. 76:1332–1336.

9. Jeong SJ, Apostolska S, Jankulovska M, Angelova D, Nares S, Yoon MS, et al. Dental caries risk can be predicted by simply measuring the pH and buffering capacity of saliva. J Korean Soc Hyg Sci. 2006. 6:159–162.

10. Jeong MJ, Kim IH, Choi CW. Associations between microbiological presence, pH, and buffer capacity of the saliva and caries in clinical survey. Oral Biol Res. 2004. 28:73–82.

11. Kang SM, Jung Hl, Jeong SH, Kwon HK, Kim BL. Development of a new color scale for a caries activity test. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2010. 34:9–17.

12. Hopkins J, Cescon DW, Tse D, Bradbury P, Xu W, Ma C, et al. Genetic polymorphisms and head and neck cancer outcomes: a review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008. 17:490–499.

13. Keyes PH. The infectious and transmissible nature of experimental dental caries. Findings and implications. Arch Oral Biol. 1960. 1:304–320.

14. Hyun YC, Lee YJ. Gingival crevicular fluid measure on individual tooth by use of Periotron 8000®. Int J Clin Prev Dent. 2009. 5:31–37.

15. Larmas M. Simple tests for caries susceptibility. Int Dent J. 1985. 35:109–117.

16. Park KC, Shin SC, Song KB. Prospective preventive dentistry. 1997. 1st ed. Seoul: Jungmoongak;219–221.

17. Ku HM, Lee JH, Woo SH, Cho JW. Amounts of gingival crevicular fluid according to age and the relationship with oral micro-organism. Int J Clin Prev Dent. 2009. 5:93–101.

18. Miller CS, Foley JD, Bailey AL, Campell CL, Humphries RL, Christodoulides N, et al. Current developments in salivary diagnostics. Biomark Med. 2010. 4:171–189.