Department of Preventive, Restorative and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Odontology. 2012 Jan;100(1):67-75. doi: 10.1007/s10266-011-0018-1. Epub 2011 May 10.
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.
本研究评估了三种条带状、比色测试与两种实验室方法之间的相关性，以分析唾液缓冲能力。条带状测试包括唾液检查缓冲液、Dentobuff 条带和 CRT(®)缓冲测试。实验室方法包括 Ericsson 实验室方法和单音调酸碱滴定法，以创建唾液可滴定酸度的参考范围。此外，还制备并测试了特定的缓冲溶液，以模拟唾液中的碳酸盐、磷酸盐和蛋白质缓冲系统。通过 Spearman 等级检验分析了方法之间的相关性。在三种条带状测试中，获得的缓冲能力值之间存在差异，在具有中低缓冲能力的唾液样本中更为明显。所有条带状测试都能够将碳酸氢盐、二氢磷酸盐和 0.1%蛋白质缓冲溶液正确分配到相应的缓冲类别中。然而，在总蛋白浓度为 0.6%时，没有任何测试系统能够准确工作。由于与 Ericsson 实验室方法存在一定差异，并且依赖于唾液中的蛋白质含量，因此需要对条带状测试进行改进。
