3种唾液采集方法对唾液分泌的影响  

Effect of 3 saliva collection methods on salivary secretion

作　　者：王丽辉[1] 林传权[1] 杨龙[1] 李茹柳[1] 陈龙辉[1] 张磊[1] 

机构地区：[1]广州中医药大学脾胃研究所,广东广州510405

出　　处：《上海口腔医学》2015年第5期563-568,共6页Shanghai Journal of Stomatology

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(81403297);教育部博士点基金新教师系列项目(20124425120017);广州中医药大学优秀青年学者科研基金项目(2013-07);财政部特色重点学科项目[财教(2013)339];华南中医药协同创新中心-中医药防治脾胃病;脑病创新研究(E1-KFD015141K03);广州中医药大学"青年英才培养工程"资助项目(QNYC20140114)~~

摘　　要：目的 :比较采集唾液样品的3种方法对唾液分泌的影响,筛选较优的方法以便用于后续研究。方法 :55名年轻健康志愿者分别以EP管自然流取法、口中转动棉柱法和口中咀嚼棉柱法采集酸刺激前、后的唾液样品,检测唾液流率、唾液淀粉酶(salivary alpha-amylase,s AA)活性及其酸刺激前、后的比值,为优选采集唾液方法提供依据。采用SPSS 17.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果 :EP管自然流取法与口中转动棉柱法的唾液流率比值、s AA活性比值及单位时间总s AA活性比值显示各指标在酸刺激后均升高,指标的总体变化趋势一致,且各指标酸刺激后升高的检出率较为接近。其中以口中转动棉柱法有结果客观、可平行采集足量唾液的优势;而口中咀嚼棉柱法的结果与前2种方法差异较大,各指标比值升高的检出率显著低于前两者,且未能准确反映健康人酸刺激后s AA活性升高的现象。结论:根据3种唾液采集方法比较的结果,在研究酸刺激前后唾液分泌改变时,建议选用口中转动棉柱法。PURPOSE： This study compared the effect of 3 saliva collection methods on salivary secretion, in order to select optimum collection method for follow-up studies. METHODS： Fifty-five young healthy volunteers＇ saliva samples were collected by EP tube collecting emulated with natural flow （ETC）, rotating mouth swab slightly （RMS） and chewing mouth swab （CMS） before and after stimulating with acid. The salivary flow rate, salivary alpha-amylase （sAA） activity of each saliva sample and its ratio before and after stimulating with acid were detected to provide the basis for the preferred method of collecting saliva. SPSS 17 software package was used to compare the results before and after acid stimulation. RESULTS： The salivary flow rate ratio （1.73±1.35 and 1.37±0.82, respectively）, sAA activity ratio （1.22±0.38 and 1.10±0.30, respectively） and unit time total sAA activity ratio （2.12±1.57 and 1.56±1.18, respectively） of ETC and RMS increased after acid stimulation with the same tendency, and the detection rate of the indexes were closer between ETC and RMS （salivary flow rates： 80%, 78.2%; sAA activity：67.3%, 60.0%; unit time total sAA activity： 83.6%, 76.4%, respectively）. Among them, RMS had the advantage of objective and paralleled to collect sufficient amount of saliva, However, the resuhs of CMS were quite different with the first two methods. The detection rate of each index ratio increased in the CMS （salivary flow rate, sAA activity and unit time total sAA activity were 67.3%, 40%, 61.8%, respectively） was significantly lower than the first two, and did not accurately reflect the status of sAA activity in healthy people after acid stimulation. CONCLUSIONS： RMS is recommended when studying on the variation of salivary secretion before and after salivary gland stimulated by acid.

关 键 词：唾液 采集方法 唾液流率 唾液淀粉酶活性 

分 类 号：R446.1[医药卫生—诊断学]