Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 129-135

Oral rinse-based cytology and conventional exfoliative cytology: A comparative study

1 Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, K V G Dental College and Hospital, Sullia, India
2 Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, A B Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
3 Department of Periodontics, K V G Dental College and Hospital, Sullia, India

Correspondence Address:
Shaila Mulki
Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, K V G Dental College and Hospital, Sullia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.137910

Rights and Permissions

Context: Simple screening test for resource-challenged areas. Aims: To compare specimen adequacy and diagnostic agreement between oral rinse-based smears and conventional smears in oral cancer, oral leukoplakia, and normal controls. Settings and Design: Twenty-five histologically confirmed cases of oral cancer, 29 clinically diagnosed cases of oral leukoplakia, and 54 normal controls were subjected to the oral rub-and-rinse technique and the conventional exfoliative cytology. Patients and Methods: Smears were consequently stained with the Papanicolaou (PAP) stain and were examined independently by two different cytopathologists in a double-blind fashion. The results were classified as: Negative, atypical, positive, and unsatisfactory. Furthermore, they were compared, to assess the sample adequacy, cellular distribution, staining, leucocytes/inflammation and cellular clarity in both the smears. Statistical Analysis Used: Chi square test and Wilcoxon-matched pairs signed rank test (P ≤ 0.05). Results: Among the cancer cases, 84% showed positive, 8% atypical, and 8% unsatisfactory, after using the conventional technique, whereas, the oral rinse technique showed 80% positive, 16% atypical, and 4% unsatisfactory cases. The conventional technique showed 44.82, 37.93, and 6.89% and the oral rinse technique showed 48.27, 31.03, and 20.68% negative, positive, and atypical cases, respectively, among the leukoplakia cases. Among the normal controls, 9.26 and 90.74% and with the oral rinse technique 3.70 and 96.29% showed atypical and negative cases with the conventional technique. Sample adequacy and cellular clarity showed a statistically significant difference between both techniques. Conclusions: Both smears were diagnostically reliable, however, the oral rinse-based method showed an overall improvement in sample adequacy and cellular clarity.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded316    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal