Effect of Mobile Phone Radiation on Parotid and Submandibular Salivary Glands-An Ultrasonographic Study

2022 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream

HarmLow evidencePaper 1262

In both parotid and submandibular glands, mean volume, mean systolic velocity, and mean unstimulated salivary flow rate were higher on the dominant (phone-use) side than the non-dominant side. The authors report these differences as significant and conclude p…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Effect of Mobile Phone Radiation on Parotid and Submandibular Salivary Glands-An Ultrasonographic Study Yendluru, MS. Rana P, Sekhar MC, Chakravarthi GD, Suresh D, Nagajyoki P, Meghana G, Solanke S. Effect of Mobile Phone Radiation on Parotid and Submandibular Salivary Glands-An Ultrasonographic Study. J Clinical Diagnostic Research. Oct 2022. 16 (10) , pp.ZC25-ZC30. Introduction: In this era of digitalism, mobile phones have become a cultural accessory. Frequent smartphone usage results in possible adverse effects from low radiofrequency radiation and thermal effect emitted by these devices. One of the major concerns is salivary glands as the mobile phones are held against the side of face in close proximity to these glands. Aim: To assess the effect of cell phone radiation on the volume, systolic velocity, salivary flow rate of parotid and submandibular gland between the dominant and non dominant side of mobile phone users. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology with the sample size of 100 (50 males and 50 females). Inclusion criteria were based on the frequency of mobile phone usage of more than two hours per day. Mobile phone usage was determined based on patient's answer to the questionnaire. Ultrasonography (USG) of both parotid and submandibular gland was done bilaterally to measure the volume of the glands and Colour Doppler of external background-color:inherit"carotid artery to measure systolic velocity. Modified Schirmer tear strips were used bilaterally to measure unstimulated salivary flow rate. The data was entered into MS excel and significance was calculated using independent sample t-test. Results: In parotid gland, mean volume, mean systolic velocity and mean salivary flow rate were of higher value in the dominant side (14.22 +/- 2.17 mL; 15.14 +/- 3.74 cm/s; 0.37 +/- 0.26 mm/5 mins) compared to the non dominant side (13.76 +/- 2.14 mL; 14.53 +/- 3.39 cm/s; 0.24 +/- 0.2 mm/5 mins). In submandibular gland, mean volume, mean systolic velocity and mean salivary flow rate were of higher value in the dominant side (9.60 +/- 1.96 mL; 15.70 +/- 6.44 cm/s; 0.30 +/- 0.22 mm/5 mins) compared to the non dominant side (8.88 +/- 2.17 mL; 13.87 +/- 4.83 cm/s; 0.26 +/- 0.21 mm/5 mins). Conclusion: The volume, systolic velocity of blood flow, the salivary flow rate, of the parotid gland and submandibular gland were significantly more on the dominant side than the non dominant side of mobile phone usage. The study emphasised that prolonged mobile phone usage causes biological changes in salivary glands and its flow rate. Open access paper: jcdr.net df

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecross_sectional

Effect directionharm

PopulationMobile phone users attending a Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology (50 males, 50 females); inclusion: >2 hours/day mobile phone use

Sample size100

ExposureRF · >2 hours/day (self-reported)

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Parotid gland volume (USG)
Submandibular gland volume (USG)
Systolic velocity (Colour Doppler; external carotid artery)
Unstimulated salivary flow rate (Modified Schirmer tear strips)

Limitations

Cross-sectional design
Mobile phone use assessed by questionnaire/self-report
No RF exposure metrics reported (e.g., frequency, SAR)
Comparison is within-person dominant vs non-dominant side; potential confounding by inherent side dominance not described

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": ">2 hours/day (self-reported)"
  },
  "population": "Mobile phone users attending a Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology (50 males, 50 females); inclusion: >2 hours/day mobile phone use",
  "sample_size": 100,
  "outcomes": [
    "Parotid gland volume (USG)",
    "Submandibular gland volume (USG)",
    "Systolic velocity (Colour Doppler; external carotid artery)",
    "Unstimulated salivary flow rate (Modified Schirmer tear strips)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In both parotid and submandibular glands, mean volume, mean systolic velocity, and mean unstimulated salivary flow rate were higher on the dominant (phone-use) side than the non-dominant side. The authors report these differences as significant and conclude prolonged mobile phone use causes biological changes in salivary glands and flow rate.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Cross-sectional design",
    "Mobile phone use assessed by questionnaire/self-report",
    "No RF exposure metrics reported (e.g., frequency, SAR)",
    "Comparison is within-person dominant vs non-dominant side; potential confounding by inherent side dominance not described"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "mobile phone radiation",
    "radiofrequency",
    "parotid gland",
    "submandibular gland",
    "ultrasonography",
    "colour doppler",
    "salivary flow rate",
    "dominant side"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "mobile-phones",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Study evaluates effects associated with mobile phone RF exposure on salivary glands."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: Not supplied
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library