Salivary biomarkers have been widely used to help diagnose stress, anxiety, and/or depression. This study aimed to compare the responses of three commonly investigated salivary stress biomarkers that represent the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activity (cortisol; sCort) and the sympathetic activity (alpha-amylase; sAA and chromogranin A; sCgA), using academic oral presentation as a model of stress. Twenty postgraduate dental students attended the seminar class as presenter and audience. The presenters’ performances were evaluated by the instructors suggesting more stress than the audience. The saliva was collected two times: before attending class and after an academic presentation (for presenters) or during the class (for audience). The pulse rates (PR) were also recorded. The results showed that the levels of all three biomarkers, as well as PR, were significantly higher in the presenter group compared with the audience group; however, the changes were most prominent with sCort and sAA (99.56 ± 12.76% for sCort, 93.48 ± 41.29% for sAA, 16.86 ± 6.42% for sCgA, and 15.06 ± 3.41% for PR). When compared between pre-post presentation, the levels of sCgA were not different, while those of sCort and sAA were significantly increased. These results suggest more sensitive reactivity to academic stress of sCort and sAA compared with sCgA and that the response of sCgA did not necessarily follow sAA pattern even though both are claimed to reflect the sympathetic activity. More studies are needed to elucidate the roles of sCgA in stress.

Objectives: A handheld biosensor for measuring salivary α-amylase (sAA) was developed for convenient on-site measurement. Previous studies reported some discrepancies in sAA levels measured with a biosensor and a standard assay. This study aimed to compare sAA levels measured with three different methods and the factors affecting its levels. Methods: Thirty-eight participants collected saliva two times for three measurements. First, the collector strip was placed under the tongue for 2 minutes, then the strip was used to measure sAA level on-site immediately (intraoral biosensor; method 1). Then, a participant pooled the saliva for 4 minutes and collected the saliva into the tube which was aliquoted to measure in a laboratory with a handheld biosensor (extraoral biosensor; method 2) and with a standard enzyme kinetic assay (EKA; method 3). Additional experiments were carried out to compare the levels of sAA measured with differences in pooling time and positioning of the collector strip. Results: A high correlation of sAA levels between an extraoral and an EKA measurement (r = 0.989) was observed, while sAA levels measured with an intraoral method showed a significant but weaker correlation with either an EKA (r = 0.475) or an extraoral method (r = 0.436). Saliva pooling time and positioning of the collector strip significantly affected sAA levels. Conclusions: A handheld biosensor is valid to measure sAA levels extraorally. For an intraoral measurement, pooling time and positioning of the collector strip need to be taken into account.

Objective: This study compared the aerosol and splatter diameter and count numbers produced by a dental mouth prop with a suction holder device and a saliva ejector during ultrasonic scaling in a clinical setting. Methodology: Fluorescein dye was placed in the dental equipment irrigation reservoirs with a mannequin, and an ultrasonic scaler was employed. The procedures were performed three times per device. The upper and bottom board papers were placed on the laboratory platform. All processes used an ultrasonic scaler to generate aerosol and splatter. A dental mouth prop with a suction holder and a saliva ejector were also tested. Photographic analysis was used to examine the fluorescein samples, followed by image processing in Python and assessment of the diameter and count number. For device comparison, statistics were used with an independent t-test. Result: When using the dental mouth prop with a suction holder, the scaler produced aerosol particles that were maintained on the upper board paper (mean ± SD: 1080 ± 662 µm) compared to on the bottom board paper (1230 ± 1020 µm). When the saliva ejector was used, it was found that the diameter of the aerosol on the upper board paper was 900 ± 580 µm, and the diameter on the bottom board paper was 1000 ± 756 µm. Conclusion: There was a significant difference in the aerosol and splatter particle diameter and count number between the dental mouth prop with a suction holder and saliva ejector (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the results revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups on the upper and bottom board papers.

Coffee beverage consumption is well-known to exert various health benefits; however, the effects of coffee aroma are rarely explored. This study aimed to investigate the calming effect of inhaling coffee aroma while the patients underwent dental procedures (probing and scaling). Salivary α-amylase (sAA) and cortisol (sCort) levels were measured as proxies of sympathetic nervous system and hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis responses to stress respectively. Blood pressures and pulse rates were recorded. The results showed that undergoing dental procedures could increase sAA and sCort levels of the patients inhaling sham aroma while those inhaling coffee aroma had significantly decreased sAA and sCort levels (40% and 25% differences, respectively). The pulse rates of those inhaling coffee aroma were also lower. Subjective assessment using visual analog scale was in line with objective measures as well. The preference for coffee aroma or the frequency of coffee drinking had no effect on the sAA and sCort responses. This is the first study to provide evidence on the effect of coffee aroma on sAA and sCort levels in patients undergoing dental procedures.

Objective This study sought to investigate the toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion of dental sealants. Materials and Methods Weight loss (∆W) and depth loss (∆D) were used as abrasion indicators. Sealant samples from nine products were soaked in dentifrice slurry and abraded by using a toothbrushing machine with a brushing force of 300 g. The mean percentages of ∆W and mean values of ∆D after 24,000 and 48,000 strokes of brushing were compared by using paired t-test. A comparison of these mean values among sealant products was performed by using one-way ANOVA and multiple comparison analysis (Scheffe's test). Results Abrasive wear was observed in all sealants. Teethmate F-1 (Kuraray Noritake, Tokyo, Japan)—a fluoride-releasing unfilled sealant—exhibited the maximum abrasive wear, with ∆W and ∆D values of 1.14% ± 0.37% and 12.84 ± 4.28 µm, respectively. Delton (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, North Carolina, United States), a light-cured unfilled sealant, showed the minimum abrasive wear, with ∆W and ∆D values of 0.41% ± 0.09% and 2.93 ± 1.23 µm, respectively. No statistical differences were observed among unfilled sealants except when compared with Teethmate F-1. Similarly, no differences were observed when comparing among filled sealants and flowable composite. Conclusion Abrasive wear occurred in all sealants after brushing with dentifrice. Almost all unfilled sealants showed less wear compared with both filled sealants and flowable composite. However, the low abrasive values of all sealants after brushing with dentifrice implied that there is no clinical significance to this finding.