Pilot study observes higher chewing counts correlate with relative postprandial salivary s-IgA increases in healthy men, suggesting mastication may transiently modulate oral mucosal immunity.
Background/Objectives: Mastication may influence oral mucosal immunity; however, its association with postprandial salivary secretory immunoglobulin A (s-IgA) dynamics remains unclear. This pilot study examined the association between mean chewing count per bite during rice ball consumption and the postprandial salivary s-IgA response in healthy men. Methods: Thirty-seven healthy adult men were enrolled. Mean chewing count per bite was analyzed continuously and secondarily in exploratory groups defined by the median (<30, n = 18; ≥30 chews/bite, n = 19). Unstimulated whole saliva was collected before, 0–5, 10–15, and 25–30 min after eating. Salivary s-IgA concentration, saliva weight, and s-IgA secretion rate were evaluated as absolute values and baseline ratios. Baseline-adjusted, repeated-measures, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Mean chewing count per bite correlated positively with normalized salivary s-IgA concentration at 10–15 min (ρ = 0.347, p = 0.036) and 25–30 min (ρ = 0.352, p = 0.033), but these associations were attenuated after false discovery rate correction (q = 0.053 for both). Baseline salivary s-IgA was inversely associated with normalized responses. In exploratory group comparisons, normalized salivary s-IgA concentration was higher in the ≥30 chews/bite group at 10–15 and 25–30 min, whereas absolute s-IgA concentration, saliva weight, and s-IgA secretion rate did not differ between groups. Baseline-adjusted associations were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Higher mean chewing count per bite may be associated with greater relative postprandial salivary s-IgA responses in healthy adult men, but these findings are exploratory and should be interpreted cautiously.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tabata et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: