4.1 Article

Relationships between the amount of saliva and medications in elderly individuals

Journal

GERODONTOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 116-120

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2009.00358.x

Keywords

saliva; medication; gender; elderly

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate medications that are related to volume of saliva in the elderly. Background data: In the elderly, many cases of mouth dryness may represent side effects of medication. Materials and methods: The volume of unstimulated saliva was measured for 30 s (cotton roll test), and with stimulation for 3 min (gum test) in 368 subjects 79-80 years old (177 men, 191 women). Medications were investigated using subject's medication notebooks. Results: Mean volumes of unstimulated and stimulated saliva were 0.14 +/- 0.13 and 4.30 +/- 2.54 ml respectively. Significant differences were seen between gender and mean volume of saliva. The volume of unstimulated saliva was 0.16 +/- 0.15 ml for men and 0.11 +/- 0.10 ml for women. The volume of stimulated saliva was 4.99 +/- 2.67 ml for men and 3.67 +/- 2.25 ml for women. The percentage of subjects taking medication was 64.7% (238/368). Mean number of medications was 2.08 +/- 2.26, with no significant difference with gender (2.01 +/- 2.37 for men, 2.16 +/- 2.16 for women). In a stepwise multiple regression analysis with volume of saliva as the objective variable and number of drugs by category as explanatory variables, significant explanatory variables in addition to gender and number of medications were blood-coagulating agents, Ca antagonists and peptic ulcer drugs for volume of unstimulated saliva, and diabetes medications and peptic ulcer drugs for volume of stimulated saliva. Conclusion: These findings suggest that differences exist between gender in volume of saliva for elderly individuals, and that the volume of saliva is affected by the number and type of medications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available