Monitoring of saliva pH using miniaturized sensing tools as an indicator of oral health

The monitoring of oral disease is important, not alone for oral health, but for the detection and prevention of
systemic disease. The link between oral health and systemic disease is the focus of many studies, with
indications emerging of a causal link [1]. For disease diagnostics, blood has typically been the fluid of choice
for analysis, the retrieval of which is invasive and therefore unsuitable for wearable technology. Analysis of
saliva, however, is less invasive than that of blood, requires little or no pre-treatment and is abundantly
available. A strong correlation has been found between the analytes of blood and saliva [2] with saliva
containing biomarkers for diseases such as diabetes, oral cancer and cardiovascular disease. The development of
an implantable multi-parametric wireless sensor, to monitor both salivary analytes and changes in gingival
temperature, is the aim of this research project.
The aim of our current study is to detect changes in salivary pH, using a gold electrode with a pHsensitive
iridium oxide layer, and an Ion Sensitive Field Effect Transistor probe. Characterisation studies were
carried out in artificial saliva (AS). A salivary pH of between 4.5pH-7.5pH [3], and gingival temperature
between 35°C-38°C [4], were identified as the target range of interest for the human oral environment. Sensor
measurements were recorded in solutions of varying pH and temperature. An ISFET probe was then implanted
into a prototype denture and characterised in AS. This study demonstrates the suitability of ISFET and gold
electrode pH sensors for incorporation into implantable oral sensors.
[1] G. Taylor and W. Borgnakke, “Periodontal disease: associations with diabetes, glycemic control and
complications,” Oral Dis., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 191–203, Apr. 2008.
[2] E. Tékus, M. Kaj, E. Szabó, N. L. Szénási, I. Kerepesi, M. Figler, R. Gábriel, and M. Wilhelm,
“Comparison of blood and saliva lactate level after maximum intensity exercise,” Acta Biol. Hung., vol. 63
Suppl 1, pp. 89–98, 2012.
[3] S. Naveen, M. L. Asha, G. Shubha, A. Bajoria, and A. Jose, “Salivary Flow Rate, pH and Buffering
Capacity in Pregnant and Non Pregnant Women - A Comparative Study,” JMED Res., pp. 1–8, Feb. 2014.
[4] A. F. Holthuis and F. S. Chebib, “Observations on temperature and temperature patterns of the gingiva. I.
The effect of arch, region and health,” J. Periodontol., vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 624–628, Oct. 1983

Pregnancy Planning and Diabetes:A Qualitative Exploration of Women's Attitudes Toward Preconception Care

Introduction: Seeking preconception care is recognized as an important health behavior for women with preexisting diabetes. Yet many women with diabetes do not seek care or advice until after they are pregnant, and many enter pregnancy with suboptimal glycemic control. This study explored the attitudes about pregnancy and preconception care seeking in a group of nonpregnant women with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Methods: In-depth semistructured interviews were completed with 14 nonpregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Results: Analysis of the interview data revealed 4 main themes: 1) the emotional complexity of childbearing decisions, 2) preferences for information related to pregnancy, 3) the importance of being known by your health professional, and 4) frustrations with the medical model of care. Discussion: These findings raise questions about how preconception care should be provided to women with diabetes and highlight the pivotal importance of supportive, familiar relationships between health professionals and women with diabetes in the provision of individualized care and advice. By improving the quality of relationships and communication between health care providers and patients, we will be better able to provide care and advice that is perceived as relevant to the individual, whatever her stage of family planning. © 2012 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.

Glycemic index, glycemic load, and risk of digestive tract neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Habitual consumption of diets with a high glycemic index (GI) and a high glycemic load (GL) may influence cancer risk via hyperinsulinemia and the insulin-like growth factor axis.
Objective: The objective was to conduct a systematic review to assess the association between GI, GL, and risk of digestive tract cancers.
Design: Medline and Embase were searched for relevant publications from inception to July 2008. When possible, adjusted results from a comparison of cancer risk of the highest compared with the lowest category of GI and GL intake were combined by using random-effects meta-analyses.
Results: Cohort and case-control studies that examined the risk between GI or GL intake and colorectal cancer (n = 12) and adenomas (n = 2), pancreatic cancer (n = 6), gastric cancer (n = 2), and squamous-cell esophageal carcinoma (n = 1) were retrieved. Most case-control studies observed positive associations between GI and GL intake and these cancers. However, pooled cohort study results showed no associations between colorectal cancer risk and GI intake [relative risk (RR): 1.04; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.12; n = 7 studies] or GL intake (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.95, 1.17; n = 8 studies). Furthermore, no significant associations were observed in meta-analyses of cohort study results of colorectal cancer subsites and GI and GL intake. Similarly, no significant associations emerged between pancreatic cancer risk and GI intake (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.19; n = 5 studies) or GL intake (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.86, 1.19; n = 6 studies) in combined cohort studies.
Conclusions: The findings from our meta-analyses indicate that GI and GL intakes are not associated with risk of colorectal or pancreatic cancers. There were insufficient data available regarding other digestive tract cancers to make any conclusions about GI or GL intake and risk.

Glycemic index, carbohydrate and fiber intakes and risk of reflux esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, and esophageal adenocarcinoma

Objective: To examine the association between dietary glycemic index (GI), glycemic load (GL), total carbohydrate, sugars, starch, and fiber intakes and the risk of reflux esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Methods: In an all-Ireland study, dietary information was collected from patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (n = 224), long-segment Barrett’s esophagus (n = 220), reflux esophagitis (n = 219), and population-based controls (n = 256). Multiple logistic regression analysis examined the association between dietary variables and disease risk by tertiles of intake and as continuous variables, while adjusting for potential confounders.

Results: Reflux esophagitis risk was positively associated with starch intake and negatively associated with sugar intake. Barrett’s esophagus risk was significantly reduced in people in the highest versus the lowest tertile of fiber intake (OR 0.44 95%CI 0.25–0.80). Fiber intake was also associated with a reduced risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma, as was total carbohydrate intake (OR 0.45 95%CI 0.33–0.61 per 50 g/d increase). However, an increased esophageal adenocarcinoma risk was detected per 10 unit increase in GI intake (OR 1.42 95%CI 1.07–1.89).

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that fiber intake is inversely associated with Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma risk. Esophageal adenocarcinoma risk is inversely associated with total carbohydrate consumption but positively associated with high GI intakes.