2000
DOI: 10.1016/s1566-0702(00)00181-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sympathetic and parasympathetic interaction in vascular and secretory control of salivary glands in anaesthetised dogs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The present study showed that the viscosity of the study groups had a mean and ± SD with the lowest value in the first group, and increase in the second group while in the third group showed the highest value. This result was in agreement with the results reported [5,17,[31][32][33] .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…The present study showed that the viscosity of the study groups had a mean and ± SD with the lowest value in the first group, and increase in the second group while in the third group showed the highest value. This result was in agreement with the results reported [5,17,[31][32][33] .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…Daily saline infusion to retain Wharton’s duct patency cannot increase salivary flow of transplanted SMGs, which further indicates that transplanted SMGs are hypofunctional early after transplantation. Previous reports have noted that parasympathetic stimulation evokes a copious flow of saliva, whereas sympathetic stimulation produces a small amount of flow that is rich in protein (Kyriacou et al , 1988; Ekström, 1989; Lung, 1994; McCloskey and Potter, 2000), which indicates that acetylcholine plays a predominant role in regulating fluid and electrolyte secretion from salivary glands. We showed that carbachol could stimulate the secretion and reduce the injury of transplanted SMGs early after transplantation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…A similar effect was obtained after the prolonged intravenous infusion of NPY. On this basis, NPY was recognized as a factor influencing the secretory and vascular function of SMG in the dog (McCloskey and Potter 2000). Previously a vasoconstrictor effect of NPY on the blood vessels was found in some mammals including man (Lundberg et al 1982;Corder et al 1987;Morris and Murphy 1988;Fallgren et al 1989;Stjernquist et al 1991;Markiewicz 2003).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%