ABSTRACT
Statement of the Problem: Treatment with salivary substitutes and stimulation of salivary flow by either mechanical or pharmacologic methods has side effects and only provides symptomatic relief but no long-lasting results
Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of extraoral transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation [TENS] as a mean of stimulating salivary function in healthy adult subjects; as well as to determine the gender and age-dependent changes in salivary flow rates of unstimulated and stimulated parotid saliva
Materials and Method: Hundred patients were divided into two groups; Group I aged 20-40 and Group II aged >/= 60 years. The TENS electrode pads were externally placed on the skin overlying the parotid glands. Unstimulated and stimulated parotid saliva was collected for 5 minutes each by using standardized collection techniques
Results: Eighty seven of 100 subjects demonstrated increased salivary flow when stimulated via the TENS unit. Ten experienced no increase and 3 experienced a decrease. The mean unstimulated salivary flow rate was 0.01872 ml/min in Group I and 0.0088 ml/min in Group II. The mean stimulated salivary flow rate was 0.03084 ml/min [SD= 0.01248] in Group I, and 0.01556 ml/min [SD 0.0101] in Group II. After stimulation, the amount of salivary flow increased significantly in both groups [p< 0.001]. Statistical comparison of the two groups revealed them to be significantly different [p< 0.001], with Group I producing more saliva. Genderwise, no statistically significant difference was seen among the subjects in Group I [p = 0.148], and those in Group II [p= 0.448]. Out of 12 subjects with 0 baseline flows, 7 continued to have no flow. Five subjects observed side effects, although minimal and transient
Conclusion: The TENS unit was effective in increasing parotid gland salivary flow in healthy subjects. There was age-related but no gender-related variability in parotid salivary flow rate
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study was performed to determine the relative frequency of positioning errors, to identify those errors directly responsible for diagnostically inadequate images, and to assess the quality of panoramic radiographs in a sample of records collected from a dental college. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study consisted of 1,782 panoramic radiographs obtained from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. The positioning errors of the radiographs were assessed and categorized into nine groups: the chin tipped high, chin tipped low, a slumped position, the patient positioned forward, the patient positioned backward, failure to position the tongue against the palate, patient movement during exposure, the head tilted, and the head turned to one side. The quality of the radiographs was further judged as being 'excellent', 'diagnostically acceptable', or 'unacceptable'. RESULTS: Out of 1,782 radiographs, 196 (11%) were error free and 1,586 (89%) were present with positioning errors. The most common error observed was the failure to position the tongue against the palate (55.7%) and the least commonly experienced error was patient movement during exposure (1.6%). Only 11% of the radiographs were excellent, 64.1% were diagnostically acceptable, and 24.9% were unacceptable. CONCLUSION: The positioning errors found on panoramic radiographs were relatively common in our study. The quality of panoramic radiographs could be improved by careful attention to patient positioning.