Relationship between acetaldehyde concentration in mouth

Relationship Between Acetaldehyde Concentration In Mouth-PDF Download

  • Date:27 Jun 2020
  • Views:3
  • Downloads:0
  • Pages:7
  • Size:611.09 KB

Share Pdf : Relationship Between Acetaldehyde Concentration In Mouth

Download and Preview : Relationship Between Acetaldehyde Concentration In Mouth


Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : Relationship Between Acetaldehyde Concentration In Mouth


Transcription:

Relationship between acetaldehyde concentration in mouth air and tongue coating volume. we hypothesized that physiological concentrations the oral cavity as much as possible Sample gas. of acetaldehyde in human breath are related to oral in the syringe was then injected immediately and. condition or local production of acetaldehyde by oral measured. microflora The aim of this study was to investigate We also investigated acetaldehyde concentration. the physiological concentrations of acetaldehyde changes after tongue coating removal in 6. in human mouth air and the relationship between participants 5 males and 1 female aged from 27. these concentrations and oral condition to 65 years old mean age 39 8 18 4 years with. a tongue coating status score of 3 In addition, MATERIAL AND METHODS the diurnal variation morning between 8 00. and 9 00 noon between 12 00 and 1 00 and, Participants evening between 17 00 and 18 00 in another 6. At the Dental Clinic of Okayama University participants 5 males and 1 female aged from 27. Hospital sixty five volunteers 51 males and 14 to 41 years old mean age 30 2 5 4 years was. females aged from 20 to 87 years old mean age examined. 44 0 22 7 years without respiratory digestive, system otorhinolaryngologic or liver disease and Oral examination. not undergoing any antibiotic or other antimicrobial Probing pocket depth PPD and clinical. therapy participated in the present study when attachment level CAL were determined at six sites. the dentists asked the patients to participate mesiobuccal midbuccal distobuccal mesiolingual. the research The recruitment period was from midlingual and distolingual on all teeth using a. October 2013 to August 2014 The study was color coded probe Hu Friedy Chicago IL USA. approved by the Ethics Committee of Okayama Sites that bled upon gentle probing 25 g probing. University Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry force were recorded and the proportion of sites. and Pharmaceutical Sciences No 1461 August with bleeding on probing BOP was measured in. 28 2012 Written consent was obtained from all each participant The plaque control record PCR. participants was measured using erythrosine staining and was. recorded with respect to their relative location to the. Measurement of acetaldehyde gingival margin at four sites mesial distal buccal. We used the Sensor Gas Chromatograph and lingual around each tooth22 Tongue coating. SGEA P2 FIS Inc Itami Japan The system status was assessed according to distribution area. consists of pump filter flow control column as follows score 0 none visible 1 less than one. detector semiconductor gas sensor and sample, injection area manual injection with a syringe As a. high sensitivity semiconductor gas sensor is used as. a detector ppb level measurement is possible Using. a syringe injection of sample gas 5 mL starts,the measurement automatically Measurement was.
completed in 8 minutes The monitor uses ambient, air as a carrier gas and a high pressure gas cylinder. is not necessary To assess the reproducibility of the. portable monitor 100 10 000 ppb acetaldehyde was,used for calibration Measurement was performed. in duplicate Both intra and inter assay coefficients. of variation were below 5,Participants were advised to abstain from food. or drink and to refrain from their standard oral,hygiene practice on the morning of the day of. measurements Participants were also instructed, to refrain from eating strong smelling foods for at.
least 48 h from using strong perfumes for 24 h, from smoking for 24 h and from drinking alcohol for. 12 h prior to measurements Actual measurements,were conducted in the morning between 8 and. 9 am Participants kept their mouths closed for, 3 min prior to measurement of mouth air with a Figure 1 Collection of acetaldehyde Participants kept. syringe19 Figure 1 During collection participants their mouths closed for 3 min The syringe was tightly held. breathed through their nose As acetaldehyde is between lips to avoid contamination of the oral cavity with. highly volatile we avoided air contamination in,outside air. J Appl Oral Sci 65 2015 23 1 64 70, YOKOI A MARUYAMA T YAMANAKA R EKUNI D TOMOFUJI T KASHIWAZAKI H YAMAZAKI Y MORITA M.
third of the tongue dorsum surface covered 2 0 5 g and Chromogenic ix 2 g and was prepared. less than two thirds 3 more than two thirds18 All in accordance with the manufacturer s instructions. clinical procedures were performed by four trained All samples wiped from the surface of buccal. and calibrated dentists A Y T M T T and D mucosa and tongue dorsum using a sterilized dental. E Intra and inter examiner agreement for the mirror were plated on the medium for 48 hours. oral examination tongue coating status PPD and at 37 C Production of color and morphology as. CAL was good as evaluated by kappa statistics of described by the manufacturer were recorded and. more than 0 8 photographs were recorded i e green colonies of. C albicans steel blue colonies of C tropicalis and. Detection of Candida species rose colored colonies of C krusei21. We used a CHROMagar Candida medium Kanto, Chemical Corp Inc Tokyo Japan pH 6 1 to Assessment of alcohol sensitivity. detect Candida albicans C albicans Candida We used the ethanol patch test ASK Human. tropicalis C tropicalis and Candida krusei C Care Inc Tokyo Japan to assess participant. krusei 21 The medium comprised per liter peptone genotypes 28 Briefly a patch plaster fixed on. 10 g glucose 20 g agar 15 g chloramphenicol adhesive tape was attached to the inner surface. Table 1 Characteristics of participants n 65,Variable Male Female Total. Acetaldehyde concentration ppb 175 1 87 3 322 6 99 2 55 4 236 2 170 7 73 5 306 3. Number of teeth present 28 26 30 24 5 22 3 27 5 28 25 30. Mean probing pocket depth mm 2 2 2 0 2 3 2 0 1 7 2 1 2 2 1 9 2 3. Mean clinical attachment level mm 2 3 2 1 2 5 2 1 1 9 2 3 2 3 2 0 2 5. Bleeding on probing 8 6 3 9 15 8 7 1 2 9 18 4 8 3 3 6 15 9. Plaque control record 43 3 23 7 60 0 38 5 18 4 39 8 21 4 60 7. Tongue coating status 0 7 13 7 1 7 1 8 12 3,1 8 15 7 2 14 3 10 15 4. 2 12 23 5 6 42 9 18 27 7,3 24 47 1 5 35 7 29 44 6,Candida species 13 25 5 8 57 1 21 32 3. Candida albicans 11 21 6 7 50 0 18 27 7,Candida krusei 3 5 9 3 21 4 6 9 2.
Candida tropicalis 0 0 1 7 1 1 1 5,Alcohol sensitivity Low 27 52 9 9 64 3 36 55 4. Smoking status Never 31 60 8 12 85 7 43 66 2,Past 15 29 4 1 7 1 16 24 6. Current 5 9 8 1 7 1 6 9 2, Drinking frequency week Never 18 35 3 9 64 3 27 41 5. Light 26 51 0 5 35 7 31 47 7,Moderate 7 13 7 0 0 7 10 8. Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0, Mean amount of alcohol consumption 0 7 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 0 1 2.
Toothbrushing frequency day Once 8 15 7 2 14 3 10 15 4. Twice 43 84 3 12 85 7 55 84 6,Median 25 75, p 0 05 compared to female chi square test or Mann Whitney U test. light less than 5 days a week moderate 5 or more days a week and less than 360 mL a day heavy 5 or more days. a week and 360 mL or more a day,J Appl Oral Sci 66 2015 23 1 64 70. Relationship between acetaldehyde concentration in mouth air and tongue coating volume. of the arm for 20 minutes and was removed in Statistical analysis. accordance with the manufacturer s instructions A Data analysis was performed using the Statistical. patch area with erythema after removal was judged Package for Social Science SPSS version 19 IBM. to be positive and alcohol sensitivity was considered Tokyo Japan Chi square test or Mann Whitney U. to be high ALDH2 1 2 or 2 2 while in the case test was performed to compare variables between. of a negative reaction sensitivity was considered male and female and to compare acetaldehyde. to be low ALDH2 1 1 concentration in mouth air between two groups. i e male vs female Candida species positive, Questionnaire vs negative low alcohol sensitivity vs high. In addition to age sex and general condition nonsmoker vs smoker or once a day vs more than. the questionnaire included the following items once a day for toothbrushing frequency 26 The. smoking alcohol consumption and daily frequency association between acetaldehyde concentration. of tooth brushing Because smoking status14 can and other parameters were analyzed using. affect acetaldehyde production we investigated Spearman correlation coefficient Wilcoxon signed. smoking status which was characterized as rank test was used to compare acetaldehyde. never past and current 11 Information concentration in mouth air between before and. regarding drinking frequency never less than after tongue coating removal and diurnal variation. 5 days a week light 5 or more days a week in acetaldehyde concentration morning noon and. less 360 mL a day moderate 5 or more days evening Levels of significance were set at p 0 05. a week 360 mL or more a day heavy mean Differences in parameters among the three. amount of alcohol consumption per occasion and tongue coating groups score 0 1 2 and 3 and the. type of alcoholic beverage which included beer three drinking frequency groups never light and. sake wine whisky and shochu distilled alcoholic moderate were analyzed by Mann Whitney U test. beverage made from wheat or sweet potatoes with Bonferroni correction Because the number of. was obtained26 We calculated average daily alcohol participants with a tongue coating score of 0 was. consumption by multiplying the mean amount only 8 scores of 0 and 1 were combined The level. of alcohol consumption per occasion by drinking of significance was set at p 0 017. frequency Alcohol content was estimated to be, 20 g for a bottle of beer 500 mL 22 g for a cup RESULTS. of sake 180 mL 20 g for a glass of whisky 60, mL 50 g for a cup of shochu 180 mL and 12 g Table 1 shows the characteristics of study.
for a glass of wine 120 mL 1 To assess oral health participants There were no decayed teeth severe. behavior participants were asked to state their daily periodontitis or mucosal lesions Acetaldehyde. frequency of toothbrushing26 concentration in mouth air was 170 7 73 5 306 3. Table 2 Differences in acetaldehyde concentration in mouth air. Variable Acetaldehyde concentration ppb,Tongue coating status 0 1 87 9 66 9 121 5. 2 158 1 74 8 230 5,3 248 3 172 0 469 4,Candida species 124 2 83 9 242 2. 173 6 73 2 341 5,Alcohol sensitivity Low 193 7 92 8 347 3. High 113 2 62 5 248 3,Smoking status Never 175 1 85 8 342 0. Past Current 134 1 69 2 258 9,Drinking frequency week Never 192 2 69 4 302 7.
Light 175 1 101 7 324 7,Moderate 124 2 74 2 150 4, Toothbrushing frequency day Once 236 2 130 0 414 3. Twice 149 0 73 2 265 3,Median 25 75, p 0 017 compared to the 0 1 group tongue coating status Mann Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction. J Appl Oral Sci 67 2015 23 1 64 70, YOKOI A MARUYAMA T YAMANAKA R EKUNI D TOMOFUJI T KASHIWAZAKI H YAMAZAKI Y MORITA M. median 25 75 ppb Table 2 Even in participants n 31 who never. Acetaldehyde concentration in participants with smoked and had no Candida species acetaldehyde. a tongue coating status score of 3 was significantly concentration in participants with a tongue coating. higher than in those with a score of 0 1 248 3 status score of 3 was significantly higher than. 172 0 469 4 vs 87 9 66 9 121 5 p 0 001 in those with a score of 0 1 97 7 66 0 141 1. Table 3 Correlation between acetaldehyde concentration and other parameters. Variable p value,Age 0 052 0 682,Number of teeth present 0 102 0 42. Mean probing pocket depth mm 0 149 0 235,Mean clinical attachment level mm 0 159 0 206.
Bleeding on probing 0 049 0 698,Plaque control record 0 132 0 296. Mean amount of alcohol consumption g day 0 056 0 661. Figure 2 Acetaldehyde concentration in mouth air before and after tongue coating removal Acetaldehyde concentration. decreased significantly after tongue coating removal Wilcoxon signed rank test p 0 05 n 6. Figure 3 Diurnal variation in acetaldehyde concentration morning noon and evening Acetaldehyde concentration did. not present significant diurnal variations Wilcoxon signed rank test p 0 05 n 6. J Appl Oral Sci 68 2015 23 1 64 70, Relationship between acetaldehyde concentration in mouth air and tongue coating volume. vs 315 8 209 3 579 4 p 0 001 There acetaldehyde concentration was not associated with. were no significant differences in acetaldehyde the presence of Candida species The discrepancy. concentration between other parameters including between the results of these studies and the present. alcohol sensitivity and drinking habits Table 2 study may be due to differences in the procedure. No parameters were associated with acetaldehyde for detection of acetaldehyde concentration and in. concentration Table 3 experimental conditions we directly detected the. A c e t a l d e hy d e c o n c e n t ra t i o n d e c r e a s e d physiological concentration in mouth air while other. significantly after tongue coating removal 222 0 studies incubated Candida species with ethanol and. 176 2 575 5 vs 141 9 80 5 170 1 Figure acetaldehyde production was then measured7 13 As. 2 p 0 05 Acetaldehyde concentration did not Neisseria20 and Streptococci13 strains can also be. exhibit significant diurnal variations 177 5 53 8 a regional source of acetaldehyde further studies. 406 6 in the morning 86 5 42 8 136 0 at noon are required to investigate the main acetaldehyde. and 61 7 37 9 536 0 in the evening Figure 3 producing bacteria. p 0 05 Alcohol sensitivity 16 amount of alcohol,consumption3 and smoking status14 can affect. Relationship between acetaldehyde concentration in mouth air and tongue coating volume Aya YOKOI1 Takayuki MARUYAMA1 2 Relationship between acetaldehyde concentration in mouth air and tongue coating volume 2015 23 1 64 70 J Appl Oral Sci 66 third of the tongue dorsum surface covered 2 less than two thirds 3 more than two thirds 18 All clinical procedures were performed by four

Related Books