ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
The changes on salivary flow rates, buffering capacity and chromogranin A levels in adults after bariatric surgery.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-Term Changes in Salivary IL-6, TNF-α, and Periodontal Inflammation Following Sleeve Gastrectomy in Patients with Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Impact of gastroesophageal reflux disease severity on dental caries and erosive tooth wear: a case control study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Obesity and Dental Caries: A State-of-the-Art Review of Shared Risk Factors, Biological Mechanisms and Current Evidence.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Potential Shifts in the Oral Microbiome Induced by Bariatric Surgery-A Scoping Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Changes in the Protein Profile of Saliva from People with Obesity Treated with Bariatric Surgery and Physical Exercise.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Oral Health in Individuals After Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Scoping Review.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate changes in salivary flow rates, buffering capacity, and salivary chromogranin A (CHGA) levels in adults undergoing bariatric surgery (BS) compared with a non-obese control group. MATERIALS AND
methodsSalivary analyses were performed on 62 participants aged over 50 years, stratified into two groups matched for age and gender-individuals who had undergone bariatric surgery (BS) (n = 31) and a corresponding healthy control group (n = 31). Before saliva collection, participants completed a comprehensive 11-point visual numerical rating scale (NRS 0-10) xerostomia questionnaire, assessing subjective perceptions of two key aspects: dryness of the oral mucosa and resultant impact on oral functional ability. Three distinct saliva measurements were obtained: unstimulated whole saliva (UWS), stimulated whole saliva (SWS), and unstimulated upper labial saliva (ULS). The buffering capacity of unstimulated saliva was assessed using pH indicator strips, and concentrations of salivary Chromogranin A (CHGA) were quantified in stimulated saliva via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).
resultsAfter BS, more than 40% of BS group patients reported xerostomia, with 16.1% experiencing only mild symptoms without significant functional impact (p = 0.009). The prevalence of xerostomia and tongue dryness was higher in the BS group compared to the control group (p = 0.028 and p = 0.025, respectively). The comparative analysis unveiled no statistically significant differences in flow rates of unstimulated upper labial saliva (ULS), unstimulated whole saliva (UWS), and stimulated whole saliva (SWS) between the control group and patients who underwent bariatric surgery. However, in patients undergone BS with xerostomia, both ULS and UWS flow rates were significantly lower than in controls with xerostomia (p = 0.014 and p = 0.007, respectively). The buffering capacity was significantly lower in patients undergone BS than in controls (p = 0.009). No differences were found between groups regarding CHGA concentration and output values, nevertheless, higher values of CHGA concentrations were significantly correlated to lower flow rates.
conclusionAccording to the results, this study suggests that individuals undergoing BS may exhibit altered salivary buffering capacity and reduced unstimulated salivary flows in the presence of xerostomia. Additionally, the findings suggest that elevated concentration of salivary CHGA might be associated, in part, with salivary gland hypofunction. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical significance of this study lies in highlighting the changes in salivary functions after BS. The identified salivary alterations might be attributed to adverse effects of BS such as vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux, and dehydration. Understanding these changes is crucial for healthcare professionals involved in the care of post-BS patients, as it sheds light on potential oral health challenges that may arise as a consequence of the surgical intervention. Monitoring and managing these salivary alterations can contribute to comprehensive patient care and enhance the overall postoperative experience for individuals undergoing BS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.