From the article: "“It is a known observation among the vulgar that the saliva is efficacious in cleansing foul wounds, and cicatrizing recent ones,” wrote the 18th-century physician Herman Boerhaave. He was correct. Wounds that would take several weeks to heal on one’s skin disappear in a week inside the mouth."
But the author of the article (not Boerhaave) seems to be missing several points:
1) a wound inside the mouth is protected by tissue all about, and body temperature is maintained as well. An external wound is ~half open to the world and has no temperature maintenance on the open surface. Temperature is important for the immune system to perform.
b) concerning the phrase "saliva is efficacious in cleansing foul wounds": what Boerhaave is saying is that licking one's wounds is efficacious. He's not merely speaking of saliva floating about a wound inside a closed mouth. The common phrase "to lick one's wounds" is not a false euphemism and is not limited to animals other than humans. Licking a wound can help heal it, sucking a wound can remove material that has been inserted into a wound and can quickly route fresh blood to a wound site, aiding healing and flushing out foreign material.
The tissues inside the mouth are a form of mucus membrane. The skin is not. They are different tissues. It is disingenuous to frame it like they are the same type of tissue.
My personal experience with licking my wounds, after two decades under the assumption that it would help: it gets infected and then scars badly. N = 1, but admittedly a very pertinent sample, at least for me :p
Placing an Activ Flex by Band-Aid on a skin cut seems to act as a true temporary replacement "second skin", and the cut heals far more rapidly then a regular band-aid. It heals in a similar time-scale as this article says is regular for the mouth.
I'm sure there are other brands or technologies that act similarly, but once I found this particular type of bandage I never had the thought of using anything else.
A Tegaderm has a similar effect on small scrapes and burns. It seals in a lot of the moisture while still allowing you to sweat through it. I still irrigate the wound thoroughly before bandaging, but it's nice not having to change dressings while the wound is healing.
While not an expert on this particular science, I noticed that the look of the applied bandages is entirely different. The BA bandage puffs up with moisture, while the Tegaderm visually seems as if it only creates a seal.
I would have just assumed that the major factor is that your mouth is full of fast-dividing cells. In short, the lining of your mouth is constantly replacing itself, which is great for injury (and withstanding enzymatic action of saliva), but it’s also why chemotherapy causes so many problems in the mouth and GI tract.
Agreed, and presumably there's evolutionary factors here too. If you can't eat you die - having a wound in your mouth that reduces your ability to eat is not good, so there must be strong selective pressures for tissues that can regenerate rapidly. I guess the selective force in the opposite direction might be the caloric demands of healing, hence why we don't regenerate too rapidly.
That, and the blood supply. The inside of my mouth is a sort of lurid pink, because all the tissues are packed with capillaries. Meanwhile, my skin is a barely pinkish off-white, because what blood vessels there are are deep below layers of cells and connective tissue.
I 100% solved my canker sore problem when I stopped using toothpaste. Apparently it is the Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) in it that causes them in some people.
You can get SLS free toothpaste. Unfortunately the tubes I've found are also flouride free, and they have Sodium Lauroyl Sarcosinate in them, which I assume is similar to Sodium Lauryl Sulfate.
SLS is only used to make foam when you brush your teeth. I promise I won't think any less of your toothpaste if it doesn't foam!
^This. I use Biotene because it doesn't have SLS. I used to have this weird issue where after brushing, a residual, thick stuff (saliva? inner membranous lining of mouth?) would gather on my lips. It would be embarrassing wiping it off while talking to someone but it would subside an hour or so from brushing. After reading about SLS, I started looking for and SLS-free tooth paste. Since I have been using and SLS-free tooth paste, I have never had that problem again.
You can purchase Gel-Kam over the counter. It has 0.4% (w/w) stannous fluoride. (Other ingredients: Glycerin, hydroxyethylcellulose, flavoring.) I use that a few times a month.
And, I live in a water district with fluoride in the water.
FYI, there’s an easy chemical cauterizer called Debacterol that’s basically a magic bullet for canker sores — after application, the pain is completely gone until it’s healed.
Exactly. They always seem much more painful than say a cut on your arm. I still don't know what is the underlying "mechanism" of a canker sore/mouth ulcer. Why do physiological conditions manifest as a "wound" in a random area of the mouth?
If you're open to alternatie medicine, traditional Chinese medicine (and probably ayurvedic medicine) splits food into hot/cold groups that affect your body's balance.
My personal armchair doctor explanation is that the inside of the mouth experiences a lot of small cuts, but our immune system takes care of those before they turn into larger wounds. When your immune system is weaker, or your mouth is drier, then those small wounds open into larger ones.
Consider food allergies -- I used to suffer from canker sores and then accidentally stopped drinking milk for 6 months (moved to a place where it wasn't available) and voila they disappeared!
(I didn't actually notice that they had disappeared until I returned to milk-land, and they came back. Took another month or so to establish the link clearly, since there was 3-4 day delay between drinking milk and appearance of canker sores. Then it took another couple of years to alter my habits ...)
It's not so much that you were drinking milk, as that you were drinking milk to answer thirst—i.e., you were drinking milk when dehydrated. When you're dehydrated, the mucous membranes of your mouth and throat and sinuses become highly absorbent to any fluid that passes by. If there are things dissolved in solution in that fluid, they'll get absorbed into your mucous membranes too, and stick around for quite a while (either until you drink something else; until you exercise or take in a sauna, and sort of "sweat internally", purging said membranes; or until your lymphatic system slowly flushes the contents of your interstitial fluid out to your liver.)
To talk about canker sores, I first have to talk about dental plaque. Plaque appears when both of these conditions are true:
1. your mucous membranes are saturated with nutrients (such as those in milk, or juice, or soda, or "saucy" foods) amenable to the growth of bacterial biofilms; and
2. you are dehydrated enough—or under the chronic effects of diuretics such as caffeine—such that you don't consistently produce enough saliva to reach the mucous membrane and battle the nascent bacterial colony.
(That's right: plaque may live on your teeth, but the food those bacteria consume mostly isn't food stuck to/between your teeth; it's food "in" the mucous membranes of your lips. This is why the regrowth speed of plaque seems to have no correlation to how well you've brushed your teeth—the factor is how much food they have access to, and brushing your teeth has no effect on the nutritive content of your mucous membranes.)
Canker sores, then, happen when an established plaque (bacterial biofilm) colony is pressed into a dehydrated mucous membrane, further isolating it from the reach of saliva, for an extended period. Picture, say, a dirty tooth pressed against your lower/upper lip as you sleep, with your face laying to squeeze that part of your lip around the tooth, such that saliva can't get in.
So, ways to avoid the problem:
1. brush your teeth at night (i.e. after you stop eating food.) It's more important than brushing in the morning, if you want to prevent canker sores.
2. If you're dehydrated, drink water or another substance that contains few bacteria-promoting nutrients (like unsweetened flavoured carbonated water, or even hard liquor.) If you can't—if only milk/juice/soda/beer/coolers are being served—then try to "chase" your drink with water as soon as possible. When you do, swish some of the water in your mouth as if it was a mouthwash. Ensure your mucous membranes themselves are getting hydrated.
3. Get enough vitamin C. Subclinical hypovitaminosis C ("pre-scurvy") causes the linings of your mucous membranes to weaken, making it easier for rough spots on your teeth to cause micro-abrasions in them, which is where bacterial biofilms get in. But make sure you're not "getting enough vitamin C" by drinking orange juice when you're dehydrated!
This was incredible! Thanks for sharing. I wish they taught more of this kind of thing in grade school. Do you work in the dental field?
I've been reading about xylitol lately, a sweetener found in sugar free gum. From what I can tell, it could potentially help with cavities because it can help regenerate dentin. Not to mention gum seems to be generally helpful for removing waste from teeth. Is this something you've heard about?
You know what doesn't do either of those things? Any mouthwash you can buy in the mouthwash aisle.
Ask a dentist about mouthwash. They'll recommend it—but only because the alcohol temporarily shrinks your gums, which allows a toothbrush and/or floss to scrape plaque out that was embedded deeper between the gum and the tooth. Mouthwash doesn't kill bacteria. (Or, it does, but only for the 30 seconds it's in your mouth—meaning that you'll have just created a power-vacuum that other, worse bacteria from e.g. the back of your throat can intrude into. And now the alcohol has also dried out your mucous membranes!)
If a dentist needs to prescribe you a mouthwash, on the other hand—for example, to keep a wound inside your mouth clean post-surgery—they'll prescribe something with ingredients completely unlike that in "regular" mouthwash. Here's (https://www.amazon.ca/Chlorhexidine-Gluconate-Antiseptic-Pep...) an example of one.
The primary ingredient of "mouthwash that actually works" is chlorhexidine—that's a chemical more commonly used as a surgical antiseptic (i.e. a "scrub" doctors will sanitize their hands with before putting them inside your body.) Conveniently, the fact that it's safe to touch your internal organs with, also means that it's safe to touch your mucous membranes with. (Though it's not entirely safe; it says stringently on such mouthwashes not to swallow any—but not because it'd harm you per se, just that it'd likely kill your intestinal flora in much the same way an antibiotic would.)
Interestingly, chlorhexidine and xylitol work in similar ways—they're both things bacteria intentionally take up into themselves, that then destroy the bacteria from the inside. Xylitol just stalls the bacteria's metabolism, starving it to death; while, IIRC, chlorhexidine throws off the bacteria's osmotic regulation until it pops, much like highly-saline environments do—but without doing the same to animal cells. Unlike xylitol, though, chlorhexidine will stick around in the mucous membranes (until you do any of the stuff I mentioned in the previous post) for eight hours, protecting you all the while. It's great. Everyone should use it, at least at night.
It's kind of weird, given all this, that it's not well-known, and not used in regular mouthwashes, no? Well, much like you just can't convince some people that a HWRNG-seeded CSPRNG is a valid source of OS entropy, you just can't convince some people that long-term chlorhexidine use wouldn't result in bacterial resistance—even though, in both cases, if there was any potential for it to fail in "normal" use (OS entropy; mouth-washing), it would have failed a long time ago in the "heavy-duty" use-case where it's already being used (cryptography; surgery.)
Or, to put that another way: if doctors will put chlorhexidine on their hands every day without worrying about growing MRSA under their fingernails, you can put it in your mouth every day without worrying about growing MRSA in your throat.
(Bonus pleasant fact: most prepared chlorhexidine mouthwash solutions are sweetened with xylitol. So you're getting a double-effect from that.)
On the other hand, prepared chlorhexidine mouthwash isn't very cheap (the one I linked above was $15 for a bottle that'll last less than a month), and preparing such a mouthwash yourself from concentrate is really a hassle (pure 2-4% chlorhexidine gluconate is much cheaper, but just diluting it with water/alcohol would create a solution that only retains potency for ~1 day; you'd need to add other chemicals to make it shelf-stable.)
But, if you can't (or just don't want to) get chlorhexidine mouthwash, I still wouldn't recommend using alcohol-based mouthwash. For battling gingivitis or a canker sore or whatever else, Xylitol actually works pretty well as a "quick-fix" alternative. That is, it works well if you exploit the very property I mentioned before—increased mucous-membrane absorption and retention under dehydration. So, here's a "life hack":
• Go buy a box of xylitol sweetener packets (the kind you'd pour into coffee. You can probably find them sorted into the "nutrition products for diabetics" area of a drug store.)
• Before you sleep, brush your teeth, floss, swish with water, spit. And then...
• Dump one of those xylitol sweetener packets directly into your mouth, not dissolved in liquid or anything. Spread it around; get it onto the insides of your lips, onto your teeth, etc.
• Let it absorb. Don't swallow it; just let it sit.
• Go to sleep, just like that.
That will protect your mouth, at least a little. Far more than Listerine ever would.
---
Oh, and as a separate thought: if you have recurring canker sores, oral thrush, throat/sinus infections, ear infections, etc., despite good oral hygiene—there's likely a "hidden fortress" of bacterial biofilm somewhere out of reach, probably your maxillary sinuses or adenoids or Eustachian tubes. These areas are "safe" for bacteria because they're damp from breathing, but few actual fluids reach them.
Want a permanent solution? Flush them out. For the nose, I see people trying nasal lavage ("neti pots" et al), and for the ears, I see people going to an ENT to get microsuction. Neither of these are really needed. The biofilms aren't invincible; they're just dry—too dry for your body's natural defences to loosen them. Drip a few drops of mineral oil down your nose/into your ears, once per day. After two days, you should start to feel the need to clear your sinus passages by snorting, inwards. Just keep doing that. And voila, the hidden fortress has been destroyed.
Keep in mind that many aphthous ulcers are actually viral in origin, too, relating to the body's reaction to them. There are a wide variety of causes of canker sores and mouth ulcers, which likely represent different kinds of pathologic mechanisms with the same result. Even some systemic diseases can manifest this way.
Great point. I have found that if I eat fresh uncooked pineapple then a similar few days later I get one. Sure can take a while to make the connection.
Sometimes these are related to acid reflux. In my case I eliminated them by switching to a diet (earlier, medicine) to treat acid reflux. Quite a relief.
Something interesting: once acid escapes from the stomach into the esophagus, pepsin also escapes and lodges in your esophagus. It activates on foods lower than pH 5, thus digesting in your esophagus. Since it is an enzyme, it is reusable. I've been following the diet in the Acid Watcher Diet book, which keeps you on foods with a pH level higher than 5, for this reason and others. It has helped a lot, and I don't use a PPI, but I'll still often use an H2 blocker. A claim of the book is that you'll start healing and won't need to follow the diet so aggressively after a while. I believe that this applies to me too.
Pepsin denatures (is permanently destroyed) in a sufficiently alkaline pH, so you could also just drink some water with baking soda mixed in. Say half a teaspoon of baking soda in a cup of water might do the trick.
Personally I found my worst heartburn was at night, so sleeping with a wedge pillow stopped me from needing pills.
as my dentist said when I asked him about is there any thing to heal them - he replied well they can take either a week or 7 days to heal. He's a funny guy.
You mean periodontics? I think the main problem there is horizontal bone loss. Periodontists can laser off unhealthy gum tissue, but once the jawbone has retreated, there's less scaffolding for healthy gum to regrow on, so it won't grow back to the same level you originally had.
Figure out how to reverse horizontal bone loss though, and you'll be rich!
Then why is it that brushing too hard is also cited as a cause of gum recession in mainstream dentistry? Shouldn't it grow back in that case, if the underlying tooth is full?
I recently had a post for a dental implant installed and the doctor used ground cadaver (or maybe bovine) bone to help grow new bone around the post area. Is that related to what you are talking about?
According to the periodontist I spoke to, bone tissue grafts work for vertical bone loss (a dent in your bone in a small area) not horizontal bone loss (bone has been lost uniformly over a wide area).
Histatins: antimicrobial peptides with therapeutic potential
ABSTRACT
Histatins are a group of antimicrobial peptides, found in the saliva of man and some higher primates, which possess antifungal properties. Histatins bind to a receptor on the fungal cell membrane and enter the cytoplasm where they target the mitochondrion. They induce the non-lytic loss of ATP from actively respiring cells, which can induce cell death. In addition, they have been shown to disrupt the cell cycle and lead to the generation of reactive oxygen species. Their mode of action is distinct from those exhibited by the conventional azole and polyene drugs, hence histatins may have applications in controlling drug-resistant fungal infections. The possibility of utilising histatins for the control of fungal infections of the oral cavity is being actively pursued with the antifungal properties of topical histatin preparations and histatin-impregnated denture acrylic being evaluated. Initial clinical studies are encouraging, having demonstrated the safety and efficacy of histatin preparations in blocking the adherence of the yeast Candida albicans to denture acrylic, retarding plaque formation and reducing the severity of gingivitis. Histatins may represent a new generation of antimicrobial compounds for the treatment of oral fungal infections and have the advantage, compared with conventional antifungal agents, of being a normal component of human saliva with no apparent adverse effects on host tissues and having a mode of action distinct to azole and polyene antifungals.
Kavanagh, Kevin and Dowd, Susan (2004) Histatins: antimicrobial peptides with therapeutic potential. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 56.
Histatins are the major wound-closure stimulating factors in human saliva as identified in a cell culture assay
ABSTRACT
Wounds in the oral cavity heal much faster than skin lesions. Among other factors, saliva is generally assumed to be of relevance to this feature. Rodent saliva contains large amounts of growth factors such as epidermal growth factor (EGF) and nerve growth factor (NGF). In humans, however, the identity of the involved compounds has remained elusive, especially since EGF and NGF concentrations are ∼100,000 times lower than those in rodent saliva. Using an in vitro model for wound closure, we examined the properties of human saliva and the fractions that were obtained from saliva by high-performance liquid chromotography (HPLC) separation. We identified histatin 1 (Hst1) and histatin 2 (Hst2) as major wound-closing factors in human saliva. In contrast, the d-enantiomer of Hst2 did not induce wound closure, indicating stereospecific activation. Furthermore, histatins were actively internalized by epithelial cells and specifically used the extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1/2 (ERK1/2) pathway, thereby enhancing epithelial migration. This study demonstrates that members of the histatin family, which up to now were implicated in the antifungal weaponry of saliva, exert a novel function that likely is relevant for oral wound healing.
Oudhoff, M. J., Bolscher, J. G. M., Nazmi, K., Kalay, H., van 't Hof, W., Nieuw Amerongen, A. V., Veerman, E. C. I.
I'm an anesthesiologist by specialty, with experience as a GP/Family practitioner; the answer to your first question is above my medical pay grade.
In regard to the second, I can say this: in the ER, a human bite is considered FAR more dangerous than a dog bite, because the human mouth has more — and more dangerous —
pathogens. The mouth is much dirtier (not cleaner) than skin.
> 1. It sounds like the mechanism for killing cells is very general. Why do histatins not attack somatic cells?
They semi-specifically target a receptor on C. albicans and other pathogens. They're also cationic [1], so they bind anionic lipids in bacteria and mitochondria that aren't found (in large quantities) on the mammalian cell surface.
> 2. Do mouth wounds simply heal faster because the mouth is cleaner?
From that second abstract:
"..histatins were actively internalized by epithelial cells and specifically used the extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1/2 (ERK1/2) pathway, thereby enhancing epithelial migration."
It's a relatively simple assay: Just grow a lawn of the skin cells, scrape a line down the middle, and see how quickly the line is filled in (with or without exogenous histatin).
So those peptides tend to do both: kill bacteria and lead to wounds healing faster.
The cells lining the entire upper GI are exposed to digestive enzymes, and are perforce replaced rapidly and constantly. Until bicarbonate rich bile is added to the mixture in the duodenum, those enzymes (and acids) eat your own cells too. Chemotherapy plays havoc with your GI tract because it selectively kills cells which rapidly divide.
As for histamines, mast cells are designed to respond to them and rupture as part of your inflammatory cycle. They release more cytokines, recruiting neutrophils and in general telling your immune system to attack.
The last time I did a first aid course, they really pushed the idea of just water and bandages. They cautioned against the use of other ointments as well as alcohol and peroxide as they can dry out the wound, prolonging healing. It certainly went against everything I feel like I would normally do, but it makes sense.
I'd be curious if this is a recent* change in methods, or a recent* push to ensure people are doing it.
*recent being the few years between when I've taken first aid courses.
If I'm reading that correctly, you're arguing against antibiotic or sterilizing agents in favor of extensive rinsing without only water.
It certainly wouldn't surprise me to hear that Neosporin et al are usually unnecessary, but are they actually bad? And if they're bad because antibiotic resistance, are things like hydrogen peroxide and rubbing alcohol also bad?
I think doc is saying, "Please don't make your wound worse with dubious remedies before you come in to show it to me."
Your mouth is full of bacteria, some of which could be harmful when introduced into an open wound. Your home first-aid kit is unlikely to be perfectly sterile, or as versatile as an entire medical clinic. If you are in the wilderness, and licking is the only means you have at your disposal to clean a wound, go for it. Your mouth is less dirty than actual dirt. Otherwise, use filtered, boiled water to wash, and a clean, sterile bandage to dress. [A single application of] antibiotic ointment is unlikely to hurt, but painting the surrounding skin with iodine would be better, and that kind of antimicrobial power isn't typically found at home, unless you have livestock and didn't care for the magnitude of your vet bills.
Povidone iodine in wound healing: A review of current concepts and practices
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Of the many antimicrobial agents available, iodophore-based formulations such as povidone iodine have remained popular after decades of use for antisepsis and wound healing applications due to their favorable efficacy and tolerability. Povidone iodine's broad spectrum of activity, ability to penetrate biofilms, lack of associated resistance, anti-inflammatory properties, low cytotoxicity and good tolerability have been cited as important factors, and no negative effect on wound healing has been observed in clinical practice. Over the past few decades, numerous reports on the use of povidone iodine have been published, however, many of these studies are of differing design, endpoints, and quality. More recent data clearly supports its use in wound healing.
METHODS:
Based on data collected through PubMed using specified search criteria based on above topics and clinical experience of the authors, this article will review preclinical and clinical safety and efficacy data on the use of povidone iodine in wound healing and its implications for the control of infection and inflammation, together with the authors' advice for the successful treatment of acute and chronic wounds.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:
Povidone iodine has many characteristics that position it extraordinarily well for wound healing, including its broad antimicrobial spectrum, lack of resistance, efficacy against biofilms, good tolerability and its effect on excessive inflammation. Due to its rapid, potent, broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties, and favorable risk/benefit profile, povidone iodine is expected to remain a highly effective treatment for acute and chronic wounds in the foreseeable future.
Bigliardi PL, Alsagoff SAL, El-Kafrawi HY, Pyon JK, Wa CTC, Villa MA.
Int J Surg. 2017 Aug;44:260-268. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.06.073. Epub June 23 2017.
In my experience, the issue with Neosporin (besides selecting for resistant bacterial populations) is that people develop a rapid counterreaction if they use it too long. The same applies to so-called "triple antibiotic ointments" and such.
Peroxide and isopropanol are more of an issue for healing, since they can be toxic to tissues.
(microbiologist)
I agree on keeping it clean and avoiding antibiotics in superficial situations, but I'm surprised by a concern regarding peroxide. Any cut with any depth I have that may have anaerobic potential at all, I use early and often. Anerobes can be tough, and I've not sensed tissue toxicity from Peroxide, (Isoproanol, for sure).
Any reactive oxygen species, of which peroxides are the classic type, can cause oxidative damage in cells. There's a reason we have catalase and peroxidases.
This isn't to say there isn't a role for topical antiseptics, but that role is probably right at the beginning after the wound is sustained. I'll go with "early" but definitely not "often."
A fair view regarding limiting prolonged usage, especially if the wound remains well vascularized and there is reasonable expectation of immune surveillance. I'm probably less of a germ-o-phobe than 99.9% of folks but deep infections and antibiotic resistance are things that keep me up at night, so I'm gonna always be a bit of a H2O2 junkie :]
Interesting exchange, thanks. I knew peroxide and isopropanol cause some cell damage, but didn't know if it was significant enough to impact healing. I also didn't know isopropanol was worse for this than peroxides? (If that is what you're saying?)
The general stance here makes sense, though; possibly one non-antibiotic clean on a fresh injury, then just leave it alone.
my view on that is that isopropanol is less discriminate in it's toxicity that hydrogen peroxide. as mentioned above, our cells (but not those of bacterial that live without oxygen) have enzymes such as peroxidase, catalyase, and Superoxide dismutase which fight oxygen radicals(how peroxide works to kill cells). Granted as mentioned above, pouring peroxide on surely overwhelms this system to some extent, so some damage can occur perhaps slowing healing. Isopropanoal just 'drys-out' and denatures every thing it hits pretty much.
Not to pretend I know more than a doctor, but I use Betadina/iodine on cuts and find I have a lot less issues with infection, especially if it's something like a cut on your foot as your foot is usually in a shoe.
I find this to be especially true if you're in a dirty environment such as when you're hunting or hiking.
I've verified that antibiotic creme and bandage work better than bandage for myself. I understand ~10% have allergic reactions. Are you optimizing for a corner case?
You bandage wounds to keep out bacteria, and it is your skin having to fight off less infections that make it heal faster. Consider that Neosporin,aka generic triple antibiotic ointment, does increase the speed of external wound healing. It does this because of its antibiotic properties. Nothing to do with moisture far as I know, where did you get that notion?
The proof that moist wounds heal faster than dry wounds came back in 1962, thanks to Dr. George D. Winter and his landmark paper, "Formation Of The Scab And The Rate Of Epithelialization Of Superficial Wounds In The Skin Of The Young Domestic Pig"1. His research showed that, contrary to the conventional wisdom at the time that wounds should be allowed to dry out and form scabs to promote healing, wounds instead heal faster if kept moist. Winter's work began the evolution of modern wound dressings that promote moist wound healing.Specifically, cell growth needs moisture and the main goal of moist wound therapy is to create and maintain these optimal moist conditions. Cells can grow, divide and migrate at an increased rate to enhance the formation of new tissue. During this phase of wound healing, an aqueous medium with several nutrients and vitamins is essential for cell metabolism and growth.
A study published in the Annals of Plastic Surgery aimed to determine the effects of moist wound care. Researchers used a porcine wound model, to compare wet conditions using saline, moist conditions using hydrocolloid dressings and dry conditions using sterile gauze. The scientists found an increase in the presence of liquids led to faster healing (wet wounds healed after six days, while moist ones took seven days and dry wounds took eight). Additionally, moist and wet wound care led to less necrosis and inflammation as well as higher quality in the newly regenerated epidermis.
But the author of the article (not Boerhaave) seems to be missing several points:
1) a wound inside the mouth is protected by tissue all about, and body temperature is maintained as well. An external wound is ~half open to the world and has no temperature maintenance on the open surface. Temperature is important for the immune system to perform.
b) concerning the phrase "saliva is efficacious in cleansing foul wounds": what Boerhaave is saying is that licking one's wounds is efficacious. He's not merely speaking of saliva floating about a wound inside a closed mouth. The common phrase "to lick one's wounds" is not a false euphemism and is not limited to animals other than humans. Licking a wound can help heal it, sucking a wound can remove material that has been inserted into a wound and can quickly route fresh blood to a wound site, aiding healing and flushing out foreign material.
https://www.quora.com/Does-licking-your-own-wound-help-heal-...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723094841.h...
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/histatin_why_licking_...