COVID-19 and the Antiviral Effect of Saliva

Salivary Diagnosis of Dental Caries: A Systematic Review

The activity of dental caries, combined with its multifactorial etiology, alters salivary molecule composition. The present systematic review was developed to answer the following question: "Are salivary biomarkers reliable for diagnosis of dental caries?". Following the "Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis" (PRISMA) guidelines, the review was conducted using multiple database research (Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus). Studies performed on healthy subjects with and without dental caries and providing detailed information concerning the clinical diagnosis of caries (Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth-DMFT and International Caries Detection and Assessment System-ICDAS criteria) were included. The quality assessment was performed following a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Checklist. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, ID: CRD42022304505). Sixteen papers were included in the review. All studies reported statistically significant differences in the concentration of salivary molecules between subjects with and without caries (p < 0.05). Proteins were the most investigated molecules, in particular alpha-amylase and mucins. Some studies present a risk of bias, such as identifying confounding factors and clearly defining the source population. Nevertheless, the 16 papers were judged to be of moderate to high quality. There is evidence that some salivary compounds studied in this review could play an important diagnostic role for dental caries, such as salivary mucins, glycoproteins (sCD14), interleukins (IL-2RA, 4,-13), urease, carbonic anhydrase VI, and urea.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Human Saliva to Oropharyngeal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Sputum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to investigate the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in human saliva and compared it with the loads in oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and sputum. In addition, the salivary viral loads of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 patients were compared. Searches were conducted using four electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, for studies published on SARS-CoV-2 loads expressed by CT values or copies/mL RNA. Three reviewers evaluated the included studies to confirm eligibility and assessed the risk of bias. A total of 37 studies were included. Mean CT values in saliva ranged from 21.5 to 39.6 and mean copies/mL RNA ranged from 1.91 × 101 to 6.98 × 1011. Meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in SARS-CoV-2 load in saliva compared to oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and sputum. In addition, no significant differences were observed in the salivary viral load of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 patients. We conclude that saliva specimen can be used as an alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection in oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and sputum.

Oral health related quality of life and the prevalence of ageusia and xerostomia in active and recovered COVID-19 Patients

Background

Salivary disturbance is associated with patients who either have an active coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or have recovered from coronavirus infection along with loss of taste sensation. In addition, COVID-19 infection can drastically compromise quality of life of individuals.

Objective

This study aimed to analyze xerostomia, ageusia and the oral health impact in coronavirus disease-19 patients utilizing the Xerostomia Inventory scale-(XI) and the Oral Health Impact Profile-14.

Methods

In this cross-sectional survey-based study, data was collected from 301 patients who suffered and recovered from COVID-19. Using Google Forms, a questionnaire was developed and circulated amongst those who were infected and recovered from coronavirus infection. The Xerostomia Inventory (XI) and Oral Health Impact Profile-14 were used to assess the degree and quality of life. A paired T-test and Chi-square test were used to analyze the effect on xerostomia inventory scale-(XI) and OHIP-14 scale scores. A p-value of 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Among 301 participants, 54.8% were females. The prevalence of xerostomia in participants with active COVID-19 disease was 39.53% and after recovery 34.88%. The total OHIP-14 scores for patients in the active phase of infection was 12.09, while 12.68 in recovered patients. A significant difference was found between the mean scores of the xerostomia inventory scale-11 and OHIP-14 in active and recovered COVID patients.

Conclusion

A higher prevalence of xerostomia was found in COVID-19 infected patients (39.53%) compared to recovered patients (34.88%). In addition, more than 70% reported aguesia. COVID-19 had a significantly higher compromising impact on oral function of active infected patients compared to recovered patients.

Comparing saliva and nasopharyngeal swab specimens in the detection of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Due to the easy transmission of COVID-19, the virus is a threat to global health. Early diagnosis of suspected patients will play an essential role in preventing further spread of COVID-19. The aim of this review study was to evaluate saliva specimen in comparison to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimen in studies selected from various databases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To achieve the objective of this study, a systematic literature search was carried out in four databases, namely PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and LILACS. The keywords ″COVID-19″, ″Nasopharyngeal Swab″, and ″Saliva″ were utilized via Boolean operators.

RESULTS

14 articles were included in this review study following the eligibility criteria. Based on data presented in studies used in the meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between both specimen types for detection of COVID-19. Heterogeneity test showed that I2 value was 5.790% (<20%). The effect size (risk ratio) of the 14 studies was 0.951 (<1).

CONCLUSION

With the results revealing no significant difference between the two types of specimen in the diagnosis of COVID-19, the use of saliva specimen is preferable for widespread use because it is easily collected without the need for qualified health workers. However, more in vivo studies are required in order to compare and evaluate saliva and NPS specimens in detecting COVID-19 using various techniques.