Table 2.

Synthesis of studies reporting of pSS patients versus sicca syndrome patients.

Authors	Country	Study design	Setting	Funding	Diagnostic criteria	pSS	Sicca syndrome	Conclusions
Azuma et al. [35]	Japan	Cross-sectional	University hospital	Public funding	American–European Consensus Group	40 patients (37 F) Age 55.4 years (SD 13.2) OHIP-14 11.3 (9.4) Salivary flow 0.78 ± 0.44 ml (min)	23 patients (18 F) Age 56.1 years (SD 17.4) OHIP-14 7.1 (SD 7.6) Salivary flow 1.69 ± 0.59 ml (min)	The decrease in salivary flow and salivary EGF levels associated with pSS progression causes a deterioration of saliva quality contributing to an impairment in oral health
Tashbayev et al. [36]	Norway	Cross-sectional	University hospital	Public funding	American–European Consensus Group	60 (60 F) Age 53.6 years (SD 13.2) OHIP-14 13.5 (SD 10.5) Salivary flow 3.5 ± 2.8 ml (min)	22 patients (22 F) Age 52 years (SD 10.4) OHIP-14 18.6 (SD 13.9) Salivary flow 4.8 ± 1.7 ml (min)	Even though patients affected by sicca syndrome had less severe clinical signs than the pSS patients, they demonstrated much poorer general and oral health-related quality of life
Galves et al. [37]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	University hospital	Public funding	American–European Consensus Group	33 (31 F) Age 49 years (SD 24.9) OHIP-14 21 (SD 18.7) Salivary flow 0.11 ± 0.41 ml (min)	9 patients (9 F) Age 40 years (SD 19.9) OHIP-14 28 (7.6) Salivary flow 0.10 ± 0.15 ml (min)	An association between pSS and oral health impairment was noted, with a negative impact on quality of life