Comparison of three strip-type tests and two laboratory methods for salivary buffering analysis
- 353 Downloads
This study evaluated the correlation between three strip-type, colorimetric tests and two laboratory methods with respect to the analysis of salivary buffering. The strip-type tests were saliva-check buffer, Dentobuff strip and CRT® Buffer test. The laboratory methods included Ericsson’s laboratory method and a monotone acid/base titration to create a reference scale for the salivary titratable acidity. Additionally, defined buffer solutions were prepared and tested to simulate the carbonate, phosphate and protein buffer systems of saliva. The correlation between the methods was analysed by the Spearman’s rank test. Disagreement was detected between buffering capacity values obtained with three strip-type tests that was more pronounced in case of saliva samples with medium and low buffering capacities. All strip-type tests were able to assign the hydrogencarbonate, di-hydrogenphosphate and 0.1% protein buffer solutions to the correct buffer categories. However, at 0.6% total protein concentrations, none of the test systems worked accurately. Improvements are necessary for strip-type tests because of certain disagreement with the Ericsson’s laboratory method and dependence on the protein content of saliva.
KeywordsStrip-type test Buffer capacity Buffer value Human saliva Titratable acidity
This study was supported by the University of Bern, Switzerland. We thank Dr. Stefanie Hayoz from the Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Bern for the statistical data analysis and Dr. Ekaterina Rakhmatullina, Department of Preventive, Restorative and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Bern, for help in revision of the manuscript.
- 2.Lussi A, Jaeggi T. Erosion—diagnosis and risk factors. Clin Oral Investig. 2008;12:5–13.Google Scholar
- 4.Fejerskov O, Thylstrup A. Different concepts of dental caries and their implications. In: Thylstrup A, Fejerskov O, editors. Textbook of clinical cariology. Copenhagen: Munksgaard; 1994. pp. 209–18.Google Scholar
- 5.Lussi A. Erosive tooth wear—a multifactorial condition of growing concern and increasing knowledge. In: Lussi A, editor. Dental erosion from diagnosis to therapy. Basel: Karger; 2006. p. 1–8.Google Scholar
- 8.Gopinath VK, Arzreanne AR. Saliva as a diagnostic tool for assessment of dental caries. Arch Orofac Sci. 2006;1:57–9.Google Scholar
- 12.Ericsson Y. Clinical investigations of the salivary buffering action. Acta Odontol Scand. 1959;17:131–65.Google Scholar
- 14.Bratthall D, Tynelius-Bratthall G. Diagnostika als Grundlage kausaler Behandlung Professionelle Prävention in der Zahnartzpraxis 1994:63–64.Google Scholar
- 27.Van Slyke D. On the measurement of buffer values and the relationship of buffer value to the dissociation constant of the buffer and the concentration and reaction of the buffer solution. J Biol Chem. 1922;52:525–70.Google Scholar
- 31.Vazquez G, Alvarez E, Navaza JM. Density, viscosity, and surface tension of sodium carbonate + sodium bicarbonate buffer solutions in the presence of glycerine, glucose and sucrose from 25 to 40°C. J Chem Eng Data. 1998;43:128–32.Google Scholar
- 32.St Jonston JH. The Surface tension of protein solutions. Part III. Biochem J. 1927;13:1314–27.Google Scholar
- 33.Hammershøj M, Prins A, Qvist KB. Influence of pH on surface properties of aqueous egg albumen solutions in relation to foaming behaviour. J Sci Food Agric. 1998;79:859–68.Google Scholar