MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 129 healthy blood donors and staffs of Penang General Hospital were recruited from June 2018-May 2019. Paired (morning and late-night) saliva samples were collected from individuals aged between 18 and 60 years old with no history of chronic medical illness. Salivary cortisol was assayed using electrochemiluminescence immunoassay technique. Non-parametric statistics were used for calculation of reference interval and 90% confidence intervals (90% CIs).
RESULTS: The reference interval for morning and latenight salivary cortisol was 2.09 - 22.63 nmol/L and <12.00 nmol/L, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The locally-derived adult reference intervals for morning and late-night salivary cortisol concentration was determined and varied with previous studies emphasising the need in establishing individual laboratory reference interval.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluating group of selective oxidative stress markers as a tool in the management of asthma disease.
METHODS: In comparison with matched healthy controls, levels of the oxidant and antioxidant markers: lipid peroxidation malondialdehyde (MDA), Total glutathione (tGSH), Uric acid (UA), Glutathione peroxidase (GPx), Catalase (CAT) superoxide dismutase (SOD), and Total antioxidant capacity (TAC) were assessed in serum and saliva of different asthma groups.
RESULTS: All oxidative markers in serum and saliva of asthma patients showed significant alterations from normal healthy controls (P saliva samples (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Determination of the oxidative markers GPx, CAT, UA in serum or saliva can distinguish asthma from healthy states. The serum levels of UA and TAC are highly effective in monitoring asthma severity, while the salivary GPx, CAT, UA, MDA are beneficial in the management of childhood asthma. Discrimination of the age factor between asthma groups can be achieved by testing GPx, SOD, TAC in serum.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study measured the effects within 4 weeks in relation to summated xerostomia inventory (SXI) and unstimulated whole saliva (UWS). Patients randomized into the interventional arm were prescribed an immunologically active saliva substitute (IASS), while patients in the control arm were prescribed a non-immunologically active mouthwash as placebo.
RESULTS: The study population consisted of 94 patients. There was a significant difference in SXI difference (p < 0.0001) and UWS difference (p < 0.0001) between control and interventional arms. No harmful side effects associated with the use of either mouthwash encountered throughout the study duration.
CONCLUSION: IASS mouthwash significantly reduces subjective xerostomia scores measured using SXI and improves objective measurement of salivary flow using UWS among nasopharyngeal cancer survivors with xerostomia.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: IASS is significantly more effective in improving subjective and objective xerostomia measurements compared to non-immunologically active mouthwash. Additionally, this treatment is very safe, with superior side effect profiles.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04491435.
METHODS: Forty-one healthy sedentary males were recruited and randomised into four groups: sedentary control with placebo (C), probiotics (P), circuit training with placebo (Ex), and circuit training with probiotics (PEx) groups. Participants in the Ex and PEx groups performed a progressive load of circuit training at 3 times/week for 12 weeks. Each circuit comprised 10 exercises with work to rest ratio of 1:2. Participants consumed either multi-strain probiotics or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. Body height and weight, blood pressure, resting heart rate, saliva and blood samples were collected at pre- and post-tests.
RESULTS: Saliva flow rate and salivary IgA, α-amylase, lactoferrin and lysozyme responses were not significantly different (P>0.05) between groups and also between pre- and post-test within each group. Similarly, total leukocytes, total lymphocytes, T lymphocytes, T-helper, T-cytotoxic, B lymphocytes, and natural killer cells counts were not significantly affected (P>0.05) by the probiotics and/or circuit training. However, circuit training significantly increased (P<0.05) immune cells count at post-test as compared to pre-test. Yet, a combination of circuit training and probiotics showed no significant (P>0.05) effects on immune cells count.
CONCLUSIONS: This study did not provide enough support for the positive effects of probiotics on immune responses among sedentary young males following resistance exercise. However, 12 weeks of circuit training enhanced immune cells count.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Saliva was collected from 4- to 6-year-old kindergarten students. Salivary neutrophils were obtained by instructing the subjects to rinse their mouth with 1 mL of sterile 1.5% NaCl for 30 seconds before expectorating it into a sterile glass. The expression of CFSE+CD35+ and CFSE+CD89+was measured and analyzed using flow cytometry.
RESULTS: The expression of CFSE+CD89+ in the caries-free group (2.46 ± 0.39) was significantly lower than that in the S-ECC group (3.41 ± 1.11), with a p-value of 0.0001, while the expression of CFSE+CD35+ in the caries-free group was (2.35 ± 0.56) compared with (1.54 ± 0.35) (p = 0.0001) in the S-ECC group.
CONCLUSIONS: The expression ratio of CFSE+CD89+ and CFSE+CD35+constitutes a marker for S-ECC.