Search

Introduction: Vesiculobullous disorders are a group of autoimmune diseases manifesting as chronic ulcers in the oral cavity. Ocular involvement may accompany oral ulcers and cause various problems for patients. This review summarizes the data regarding ocular involvement in patients with oral vesiculobullous. Methods: Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase electronic databases were searched according to related keywords. Finally, 58 articles were included, all of which were case reports or series. Characteristics such as the age and sex of patients, location and type of oral lesion, type of ophthalmic injury, the interval between oral and ocular lesion, and treatment of oral and ocular disorders were summarized in tables. Results: Eye involvement was 1.6 times more prevalent in women, and most patients were between 30 and 60 years old (67.4 %). Pemphigus vulgaris accounted for almost half of the cases (48.4 %), though lichen planus is more prevalent in the general population. The most frequently affected oral site was the buccal mucosa (17.5 %), and oral ulcers usually presented as erythema, erosion, or inflammation (22.7 %). Conjunctivitis was the most common type of eye involvement (18.4 %), and ophthalmic lesions regularly appeared 12–60 months after the development of oral lesions (30.1 %). Blindness was reported in only one case. Corticosteroids and immunosuppressives were the most frequent oral and ocular lesion therapies. Conclusion: Considering the serious burdens of any ocular injury, monitoring the ocular health of patients with oral vesiculobullous diseases is highly recommended in high-risk cases, especially middle-aged women with oral pemphigus vulgaris.

Abstract Background Human saliva as a bodily fluid—similar to blood—is utilized for diagnostic purposes. Unlike blood sampling, collecting saliva is non-invasive, inexpensive, and readily accessible. There are no previously published systematic reviews regarding different collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods for human saliva. Design This study has been prepared and organized according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD42023415384). The study question according to the PICO format was as followed: Comparison of the performance (C) of different saliva sampling, handling, transportation, and storage techniques and methods (I) assessed for analyzing stimulated or unstimulated human saliva (P and O). An electronic search was executed in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Results Twenty-three descriptive human clinical studies published between 1995 and 2022 were included. Eight categories of salivary features and biomarkers were investigated (i.e., salivary flow rate, total saliva quantity, total protein, cortisol, testosterone, DNA quality and quantity, pH and buffering pH). Twenty-two saliva sampling methods/devices were utilized. Passive drooling, Salivette®, and spitting were the most utilized methods. Sampling times with optimum capabilities for cortisol, iodine, and oral cancer metabolites are suggested to be 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM, 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM, and 14:00 PM to 20:00 PM, respectively. There were 6 storage methods. Centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C was the most utilized storage method. For DNA quantity and quality, analyzing samples immediately after collection without centrifuging or storage, outperformed centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C. Non-coated Salivette® was the most successful method/device for analyzing salivary flow rate. Conclusion It is highly suggested that scientists take aid from the reported categorized outcomes, and design their study questions based on the current voids for each method/device.

Introduction: A sialolith is a salivary stone usually presenting with swelling and pain in the affected salivary gland, most commonly the submandibular gland. There have been speculations about the association between this condition and other systemic diseases, especially those forming stones, such as nephrolithiasis and cholelithiasis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the studies assessing the relationship between cholelithiasis and sialolithiasis. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase electronic databases were searched according to the keywords related to both disorders without any publication date or language restriction. Case-control and cohort studies evaluating the relationship between salivary and biliary stones were considered eligible. Quality assessment was performed following Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for quality assessment of case-control studies. All meta and statistical analyses were performed with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Results: Two studies fully complied with the defined eligibility criteria and were included, both of which were case-control studies using national-scale databases. In both surveys, the prevalence of previous gallstones in patients with sialolithiasis was compared to that of a control group. Though one of the studies found that there is no relationship between sialolithiasis and cholelithiasis, the meta-analysis revealed that previous cholelithiasis is significantly more prevalent among patients with sialolithiasis (P = 0.000), with an odds ratio of 2.04. Conclusion: It seems that cholelithiasis is significantly associated with an increase in salivary stone formation. Therefore, a thorough salivary examination in all patients declaring current or past cholelithiasis is recommended. However, more studies, especially prospective cohorts, are needed to make firmer conclusions.