Identification of Objective Morphometric Markers of Xerostomia in the Oral Mucosa Epithelium with In Vivo Confocal Microscopy
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this work was to determine whether the morphology of the oral mucosa epithelium (OME) of patients with xerostomia differ from patients without xerostomia. In total, 34 patients with dry eye disease (DED) with or without xerostomia were examined at The Norwegian Dry Eye Disease Clinic with in vivo confocal microscopy of the lower lip. In addition, age- and gender-matched healthy controls (HC) were included. DED patients with xerostomia had a higher superficial to deep backscatter ratio compared with DED patients without xerostomia (p=0.002) and HC (p=0.001). Regression analysis demonstrated that this ratio was related to xerostomia independently of gender and age (p<0.001). Sensitivity and specificity of detecting xerostomia were 0.78 and 0.85, respectively, when using a superficial to deep backscatter ratio cut-off value of 0.995 (p=0.004). The mean nucleus to cytosol backscatter ratio in the superficial OME was lower in patients with xerostomia than in those without xerostomia (p=0.034). In vivo confocal microscopy is a potential tool for evaluating the oral cavity and to assess changes in the OME associated with xerostomia, objectively and quantitatively. The cause of the increased backscatter in the superficial OME in xerostomia, however, remains to be elucidated.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Salivary Gland Disorders and Functions · Ocular Surface and Contact Lens · Oral Health Pathology and Treatment
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (44)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1067/mob.2000.10484410.1067/mob.2000.104844 ↗
2. 10.1117/1.148104710.1117/1.1481047 ↗
3. 10.1177/002203451560907010.1177/0022034515609070 ↗
4. Peppelman M. , Wolberink E.A. , Gerritsen M.J. , van de Kerkhof P.C. & van Erp P.E. (2014). Application of leukotriene B4 and reflectance confocal microscopy as a noninvasive in vivo model to study the dynamics of skin inflammation. Skin Res Technol 21(2), 232–240.10.1111/srt.12181 ↗
5. 10.1097/00005537-199910000-0002910.1097/00005537-199910000-00029 ↗
6. Richards-Kortum R.R. , Zuluaga A.F. , Smithpeter C. , Collier T. & Drezek R. (2001). Enhancing contrast in biological imaging. Google Patents. Available at https://www.google.com/patents/US6593101
7. 10.1371/journal.pone.015521410.1371/journal.pone.0155214 ↗
8. 10.1159/00035879210.1159/000358792 ↗
9. 10.1097/DAD.000000000000021010.1097/DAD.0000000000000210 ↗
10. In vivo noninvasive imaging of healthy lower lip mucosa: A correlation study between high-definition optical coherence tomography, reflectance confocal microscopy, and histology10.1155/2013/205256 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2015.03.00410.1016/j.archoralbio.2015.03.004 ↗
12. 10.1007/978-3-642-21997-910.1007/978-3-642-21997-9 ↗
13. Diagnosis and management of xerostomia and hyposalivation
14. 10.1016/j.jaad.2003.08.00510.1016/j.jaad.2003.08.005 ↗
15. 10.1046/j.0022-202x.2001.01524.x10.1046/j.0022-202x.2001.01524.x ↗
16. 10.1007/978-3-642-32109-210.1007/978-3-642-32109-2 ↗
17. 10.1111/exd.1234510.1111/exd.12345 ↗
18. 10.1111/srt.1212810.1111/srt.12128 ↗
19. 10.1002/lsm.2203910.1002/lsm.22039 ↗
20. Lagali N. , Bourghard P.B , Germundsson J. , Eden U. , Danyali R. , Rinaldo M. & Fagerholm P. (2013). Laser-scanning in vivo confocal microscopy of the cornea: Imaging and analysis methods for preclinical and clinical applications. In Confocal Laser Microscopy - Principles and Applications in Medicine, Biology, and the Food Sciences, Neil Lagali (Ed.), InTech, DOI: 10.5772/55216. Available at http://www.intechopen.com/books/confocal-laser-microscopy-principles-and-applications-in-medicine-biology-and-the-food-sciences/laser-scanning-in-vivo-confocal-microscopy-of-the-cornea-imaging-and-analysis-methods-for-preclinica.
21. 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31818d384610.1097/ICO.0b013e31818d3846 ↗
22. 10.3109/08820538.2012.71141610.3109/08820538.2012.711416 ↗
23. 10.1136/jcp.47.1.1510.1136/jcp.47.1.15 ↗
24. 10.2165/00002512-199915020-0000410.2165/00002512-199915020-00004 ↗
25. 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.29510.1038/sj.bdj.2010.295 ↗
26. 10.12968/ijpn.2011.17.10.47710.12968/ijpn.2011.17.10.477 ↗
27. 10.1016/S1010-5182(05)80615-810.1016/S1010-5182(05)80615-8 ↗
28. 10.3109/01913123.2014.94473210.3109/01913123.2014.944732 ↗
29. 10.1007/978-3-642-17887-010.1007/978-3-642-17887-0 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.02.00210.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.02.002 ↗
31. 10.1038/sj.bdj.481290110.1038/sj.bdj.4812901 ↗
32. 10.1016/S0733-8635(05)70274-610.1016/S0733-8635(05)70274-6 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.11.01010.1016/j.tripleo.2006.11.010 ↗
34. 10.1117/1.152895010.1117/1.1528950 ↗
35. 10.1007/3-540-32707-X10.1007/3-540-32707-X ↗
36. 10.1007/s00784-015-1488-210.1007/s00784-015-1488-2 ↗
37. 10.14219/jada.2014.4410.14219/jada.2014.44 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.05.00910.1016/j.oooo.2012.05.009 ↗
39. 10.1067/mpr.2001.11377810.1067/mpr.2001.113778 ↗
40. 10.1167/iovs.09-362910.1167/iovs.09-3629 ↗
41. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.081010.1001/jamadermatol.2015.0810 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.09.00510.1016/j.ebiom.2016.09.005 ↗
43. 10.1186/1746-1596-9-9210.1186/1746-1596-9-92 ↗
44. 10.1007/3-540-30629-310.1007/3-540-30629-3 ↗