Sialometry of Upper Labial Minor Glands: A Clinical Approach by the Use of Weighing Method Schirmer’s Test Strips Paper

Abstract

Objectives. To establish referential values ranges of hyposalivation and normosalivation for the salivary flow rate (SFR) of upper labial (LS) and palatal (PS) mucosa using Schirmer's test strips paper and as a second goal to determine the values ranges of the SFR of palatal (PS) and upper labial (LS) mucosa in subjects with and without xerostomia. Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted among subjects distributed in three groups according to their unstimulated and stimulated whole saliva. Results. 144 subjects were enrolled in groups as follows: severe hyposalivation (n = 24), mild hyposalivation (n = 78), and normosalivation (n = 42). The mean and the 95% confidence interval for the LS flow rate (μL/cm2/min) were 3.2 (2.46 to 3.94), 5.86 (4.96 to 6.75), and 9.08 (7.63 to 10.53) (P < 0.001) for each group, respectively. The PS results were 1.01 (0.68 to 1.34), 1.72 (1.31 to 2.13), and 2.44 (1.66 to 3.22) (P = 0.014). Xerostomia complainers presented lower rates of LS (5.17 (4.06 to 6.23)) than non-complainers (7.33 (6.4 to 8.27)) (P = 0.003). Conclusions. The test was reliable to provide referential values ranges for LS flow rate measurement and was shown to be valid to distinguish normosalivation from severe and mild hyposalivation and also to predict xerostomia.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII: Development of a core outcome set for dry mouth: a systematic review of outcome domains for salivary hypofunction

“…Chewing materials included paraffin wax, 52-92 gum, 93-106 rubber, 107,108 and silicone. [109][110][111] Other instruments to specifically assess stimulated whole saliva flow rate/weight included gustatory stimulation (n=23) with gustatory stimulants including citric acid and lime juice. 47,62,77,85,102,[112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129] Less commonly used methods were the Saxon test; where saliva production is quantified by weighing a gauze before and after chewing it for a set time 130 (n=10), 98,131-139 biscuit test; the amount of time taken to chew and swallow a dry cracker biscuit, 140 electrostimulation, 141 and medication such as pilocarpine oral solution or tablets.…”

“…69, [341][342][343] Minor glands were investigated by several authors. Some investigated these as specific, individual regions/locations of the mouth; unstimulated labial gland saliva (n=6), 100,206,226,[344][345][346] unstimulated buccal saliva, 206,344 or unstimulated palatal saliva, 206,347 whilst some investigated more than one individual location; palatal and upper labial glands 109 or labial and buccal glands. 73…”

Bacterial extracellular polymeric substances as potential saliva substitute

“…Normal stimulated salivary flow rate averages 1.5–2.0 ml/min while the unstimulated salivary flow rate is approximately 0.3–0.4 ml/min (Villa et al 2015 ). Any flow rate below 0.1 ml/min and 0.7 ml/min for unstimulated and stimulated saliva, respectively, is considered as hyposalivation (Falcao et al 2014 , Velasco-Ortega et al 2016 ). In hyposalivation, the lubrication of oral tissues fails, resulting in discomfort affecting quality of life (QOL) and in secondary oral health problems, such as dental erosion and infections of oral hard and soft tissues.…”