Effects of the β-adrenoceptor Antagonists Atenolol and Propranolol on Human Parotid and Submandibular-Sublingual Salivary Secretion

Nederfors, Tommy; T, Ericsson; Twetman, Svante; Dahlöf, Carl

doi:10.1177/00220345940730010701

Cited by 44 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, propranolol treatment had no effects on stimulated parotid and submandibular fl ow rates but was associated with a trend towards reduced protein concentrations in the stimulated saliva samples [Watson et al, 1990]. Similar effects on salivary fl ow rates and protein levels by ␤ -adrenergic receptor blockade have been reported in human studies [Mandel and Katz, 1968;Nederfors et al, 1994]. There are undoubtedly multiple, complex and redundant interactions between salivary constituents, bacteria and the hard surfaces that function to protect against caries.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

A Mouse Caries Model and Evaluation of <i>Aqp5–/–</i> Knockout Mice

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current techniques to alter gene expression in mice allow direct analysis of the net role of a host factor in caries development. Towards this goal we first established protocols to induce and score caries in NFS/N mice and determined caries susceptibility in mice with targeted deletion of the gene encoding aquaporin-5 (Aqp5–/–), a water channel involved in the production of saliva. In the NFS/N strain of mice total sulcal caries and severity scores were consistent between experiments, whereas smooth surface caries scores were lower, more variable but distributed fairly evenly among the buccal, lingual and sulcal surfaces. In Black Swiss/129SvJ mice (genetic background of Aqp5–/– mice) caries scores were 50–75% lower compared to NFS/N mice, suggesting strain variation in caries susceptibility under our experimental conditions. In Aqp5–/– mice, in which the volume of total salivary secretion is reduced by 60–65%, there was a significant increase in caries, primarily on the buccal and sulcal surfaces. Results indicate that caries susceptibility increases with a reduced salivary flow that is associated with decreased water content of saliva.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

A Mouse Caries Model and Evaluation of <i>Aqp5–/–</i> Knockout Mice

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One approach focuses on persons taking medications that directly affect salivary protein secretion and synthesis. Experiments with human volunteers have shown that beta-adrenergic antagonists selectively reduce secretion of acinar cell products, including amylase, peroxidase, histatins, and statherin (Laurikainen et al, 1988;lensen et al, 1994;Nederfors et al, 1994). Similar alterations have been seen in asthmatics medicated with beta-adrenergic agonists, possibly due to receptor down-regulation (Ryberg et al, 1987).…”

Section: (B) Longitudinal Studiesmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Medication may be the most significant source of salivary changes in older adults. Anti-cholinergic sideeffects of antihistamines or anti-depressives may induce xerostomia (Spak et al, 1994), while beta-adrenergic agonists or antagonists may alter the concentrations of proteins secreted by acinar cells (Ryberg et al, 1987;Laurikainen et al, 1988;Nederfors et al, 1994). Medication effects need to be controlled when salivary proteins are studied in relation to oral disease in elderly populations.…”

Section: (D) Long-term Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Does Variability in Salivary Protein Concentrations Influence Oral Microbial Ecology and Oral Health?

Rudney

1995

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Salivary protein interactions with oral microbes in vitro include aggregation, adherence, cell-killing, inhibition of metabolism, and nutrition. Such interactions might be expected to influence oral ecology. However, inconsistent results have been obtained from in vivo tests of the hypothesis that quantitative variation in salivary protein concentrations will affect oral disease prevalence. Results may have been influenced by choices made during study design, including saliva source, stimulation status, control for flow rate, and assay methods. Salivary protein concentrations also may be subject to circadian variation. Values for saliva collected at the same time of day tend to remain consistent within subjects, but events such as stress, inflammation, infection, menstruation, or pregnancy may induce short-term changes. Long-term factors such as aging, systemic disease, or medication likewise may influence salivary protein concentrations. Such sources of variation may increase the sample size needed to find statistically significant differences. Clinical studies also must consider factors such as human population variation, strain and species differences in protein-microbe interactions, protein polymorphism, and synergistic or antagonistic interaction between proteins. Salivary proteins may form heterotypic complexes with unique effects, and different proteins may exert redundant effects. Patterns of protein-microbe interaction also may differ between oral sites. Future clinical studies must take those factors into account. Promising approaches might involve meta-analysis or multi-center studies, retrospective and prospective longitudinal designs, short-term measurement of salivary protein effects, and consideration of individual variation in multiple protein effects such as aggregation, adherence, and cell-killing.

show abstract

“…Given these observations, adrenergic agonists and antagonists may change sAA activity due to their impact on adrenoceptor mediated protein secretion (Garrett, 1987;Proctor and Shori, 1996;Busch and Borda, 2000) and salivary flow rate (Parvinen et al, 1984). Up to date, only two studies investigated the effects of regular AD consumption on basal sAA activity and showed a diminishing effect on sAA activity (Nederfors et al, 1994;Nederfors and Dahlöf, 1996). However, samples were collected only once per assessment time point.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%