Cargando…

Clinical oral dryness score: evaluation of a new screening method for oral dryness

The purpose of this study was to explore the association of the clinical oral dryness score (CODS) with salivary flow rates, xerostomia inventory (XI), and bother index (BI). 147 patients were screened using CODS, which determined 10 features of oral dryness. Each feature contributed 1 point, and th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jager, Derk H. Jan, Bots, Casper P., Forouzanfar, Tim, Brand, Henk S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Japan 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6153998/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29356914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10266-018-0339-4
_version_ 1783357611337318400
author Jager, Derk H. Jan
Bots, Casper P.
Forouzanfar, Tim
Brand, Henk S.
author_facet Jager, Derk H. Jan
Bots, Casper P.
Forouzanfar, Tim
Brand, Henk S.
author_sort Jager, Derk H. Jan
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to explore the association of the clinical oral dryness score (CODS) with salivary flow rates, xerostomia inventory (XI), and bother index (BI). 147 patients were screened using CODS, which determined 10 features of oral dryness. Each feature contributed 1 point, and the total score varied from 0 to 10. Unstimulated (UWS), chewing-stimulated (CH-SWS) and acid-stimulated (A-SWS) whole salivary flows and the XI and BI were measured. Associations were explored with a bootstrapped Spearman rank correlation test (1000 × bootstrapping). Based on unstimulated salivary flow, 55 patients were classified as hyposalivators, 31 as low salivators, 48 as normosalivators and 13 as high salivators. Median CODS in the hyposalivation group was 5 (IQR 3–6) compared with 3 (IQR 2–5) in the low salivation group, 2 (IQR 1–4) in the normal salivation group and 2 (IQR 1–2.5) in the high salivation group. Significant associations between CODS and the other parameters were only found in the hyposalivation group between CODS and UWS (ρ(53) = − 0.513; p < 0.01), between CODS and CH-SWS (ρ(53) = − 0.453; p < 0.01), between CODS and A-SWS (ρ(53) = − 0.500; p < 0.01), CODS and XI (ρ(53) = 0.343; p < 0.001) and between CODS and BI (ρ(53) = 0.375; p = 0.01). In patients with hyposalivation, CODS is associated with unstimulated and stimulated salivary flow and XI and BI. CODS alone or a combination of CODS with a subjective measure, such as the XI or BI, could be recommended during routine clinical assessment to detect hyposalivation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6153998
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Japan
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61539982018-10-04 Clinical oral dryness score: evaluation of a new screening method for oral dryness Jager, Derk H. Jan Bots, Casper P. Forouzanfar, Tim Brand, Henk S. Odontology Original Article The purpose of this study was to explore the association of the clinical oral dryness score (CODS) with salivary flow rates, xerostomia inventory (XI), and bother index (BI). 147 patients were screened using CODS, which determined 10 features of oral dryness. Each feature contributed 1 point, and the total score varied from 0 to 10. Unstimulated (UWS), chewing-stimulated (CH-SWS) and acid-stimulated (A-SWS) whole salivary flows and the XI and BI were measured. Associations were explored with a bootstrapped Spearman rank correlation test (1000 × bootstrapping). Based on unstimulated salivary flow, 55 patients were classified as hyposalivators, 31 as low salivators, 48 as normosalivators and 13 as high salivators. Median CODS in the hyposalivation group was 5 (IQR 3–6) compared with 3 (IQR 2–5) in the low salivation group, 2 (IQR 1–4) in the normal salivation group and 2 (IQR 1–2.5) in the high salivation group. Significant associations between CODS and the other parameters were only found in the hyposalivation group between CODS and UWS (ρ(53) = − 0.513; p < 0.01), between CODS and CH-SWS (ρ(53) = − 0.453; p < 0.01), between CODS and A-SWS (ρ(53) = − 0.500; p < 0.01), CODS and XI (ρ(53) = 0.343; p < 0.001) and between CODS and BI (ρ(53) = 0.375; p = 0.01). In patients with hyposalivation, CODS is associated with unstimulated and stimulated salivary flow and XI and BI. CODS alone or a combination of CODS with a subjective measure, such as the XI or BI, could be recommended during routine clinical assessment to detect hyposalivation. Springer Japan 2018-01-22 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6153998/ /pubmed/29356914 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10266-018-0339-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Jager, Derk H. Jan
Bots, Casper P.
Forouzanfar, Tim
Brand, Henk S.
Clinical oral dryness score: evaluation of a new screening method for oral dryness
title Clinical oral dryness score: evaluation of a new screening method for oral dryness
title_full Clinical oral dryness score: evaluation of a new screening method for oral dryness
title_fullStr Clinical oral dryness score: evaluation of a new screening method for oral dryness
title_full_unstemmed Clinical oral dryness score: evaluation of a new screening method for oral dryness
title_short Clinical oral dryness score: evaluation of a new screening method for oral dryness
title_sort clinical oral dryness score: evaluation of a new screening method for oral dryness
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6153998/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29356914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10266-018-0339-4
work_keys_str_mv AT jagerderkhjan clinicaloraldrynessscoreevaluationofanewscreeningmethodfororaldryness
AT botscasperp clinicaloraldrynessscoreevaluationofanewscreeningmethodfororaldryness
AT forouzanfartim clinicaloraldrynessscoreevaluationofanewscreeningmethodfororaldryness
AT brandhenks clinicaloraldrynessscoreevaluationofanewscreeningmethodfororaldryness