Oral Human Papillomavirus: a multisite infection

BACKGROUND: The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) has different strategies for persist in the cells. This characteristic has led us to consider the presence of the virus in tissues of the oral cavity that had no clinical signs of infection. The aim of this study was to detect the presence of DNA-HPV at multiple sites of the oral cavity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A case-control study was designed: Oral Squamous Carcinoma Group (OSCG), healthy n=72 and Control Group (CG), n=72, healthy volunteers paired by sex and age with OSCG. Four samples were taken from OSCG: saliva, biopsy, brush scraping of lesion and contralateral healthy side. In CG a saliva sample and a scratch of the posterior border of tongue were collected. HPV was detected by PCR using Bioneer Accuprep genomic DNA Extraction kit, and consensus primers MY09 and MY11. Chi square test was applied. RESULTS: 432 samples were obtained from 144 individuals. DNA-HPV was detected in 30 (42%) of OSCG subjects and 3 (4%) of CG. Two or more positive samples were obtained in 67% of the OSCG, 67% in saliva and 60% in biopsy; in CG 100% of the individuals were positive in the two samples. CONCLUSIONS: HPV is frequently present in oral cavity as a multifocal infection, even without the presence of clinical lesions

No disponible

Effect of two mouthwashes on salivary ph.

To analyze the effect of two mouthwashes on salivary pH and correlate it with age, buffer capacity and saliva flow rate in healthy volunteers, a crossover phase IV clinical study involving three age-based groups was designed. Two commercial mouthwashes (MW), Cool Mint ListerineR (MWa) and Periobacter R (MWb) were used. The unstimulated saliva of each individual was first characterized by measuring flow rate, pH, and buffer capacity. Salivary pH was evaluated before rinsing with a given MW, immediately after rinsing, 5 minutes later, and then every 10 min (at 15, 25, 35 min) until the baseline pH was recovered. Paired t-test, ANOVA with a randomized block design, and Pearson correlation tests were used. Averages were 0.63 mL/min, 7.06, and 0.87 for flow rate, pH, and buffer capacity, respectively. An immediate significant increase in salivary pH was observed after rinsing, reaching average values of 7.24 (MWb) and 7.30 (MWa), which declined to an almost stable value 15 minutes. The great increase in salivary pH, after MW use shows that saliva is a dynamic system, and that the organism is capable of responding to a stimulus with changes in its composition. It is thus evident that pH of the external agent alone is not a good indicator for its erosive potential because biological systems tend to neutralize it. The results of this study enhance the importance of in vivo measurements and reinforce the concept of the protective action of saliva.

Effect of two mouthwashes on salivary ph. / Effect of two mouthwashes on salivary ph.

To analyze the effect of two mouthwashes on salivary pH and correlate it with age, buffer capacity and saliva flow rate in healthy volunteers, a crossover phase IV clinical study involving three age-based groups was designed. Two commercial mouthwashes (MW), Cool Mint ListerineR (MWa) and Periobacter R (MWb) were used. The unstimulated saliva of each individual was first characterized by measuring flow rate, pH, and buffer capacity. Salivary pH was evaluated before rinsing with a given MW, immediately after rinsing, 5 minutes later, and then every 10 min (at 15, 25, 35 min) until the baseline pH was recovered. Paired t-test, ANOVA with a randomized block design, and Pearson correlation tests were used. Averages were 0.63 mL/min, 7.06, and 0.87 for flow rate, pH, and buffer capacity, respectively. An immediate significant increase in salivary pH was observed after rinsing, reaching average values of 7.24 (MWb) and 7.30 (MWa), which declined to an almost stable value 15 minutes. The great increase in salivary pH, after MW use shows that saliva is a dynamic system, and that the organism is capable of responding to a stimulus with changes in its composition. It is thus evident that pH of the external agent alone is not a good indicator for its erosive potential because biological systems tend to neutralize it. The results of this study enhance the importance of in vivo measurements and reinforce the concept of the protective action of saliva.