Trial reportClinical oral investigations2014
Comparison of the effect of two sugar-substituted chewing gums on different caries- and gingivitis-related variables: a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of probiotic yogurt, casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate, and xylitol chewing gums on the salivary count ofDental research journal · 2023Article
- A single-centre investigator-blinded randomised parallel group clinical trial to investigate the effect of probiotic strainsBMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the effect of two sugar-substituted chewing gums besides toothbrushing on different clinical, microbiological, and biochemical caries- and gingivitis-related variables. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was designed as a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial with three parallel arms. A total of 130 dental students, who volunteered after signing an informed consent, were randomly allocated to receive one of the following interventions: hexitol-sweetened gum containing casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP), pentitol-sweetened gum containing no CPP-ACP, and control group with no gum. Subjects within the experimental groups chewed two gum pellets for 20 min three times a day after meals. The daily consumption level of both polyols was 6.0 g. Clinical examinations and salivary samplings were conducted at baseline and after 30 days of gum use. Pre- and post-intervention stimulated whole saliva samples were quantified for calcium/phosphate ionic concentration, total facultative bacterial load, Streptococcus mutans/Lactobacillus spp. counts, and Gram-negative percentage.
resultsA statistically significant reduction in visible plaque score was displayed in the hexitol/CPP-ACP gum group after the intervention when compared with baseline, but the order of the effect was in the same order as the differences between the groups at baseline. A similar tendency was seen in both the pentitol/non-CPP-ACP gum and control groups regarding total salivary facultative bacterial load and S. mutans count, but median values of these parameters were more significantly reduced in the pentitol/non-CPP-ACP gum group in comparison with those of the control group. Alterations of salivary Lactobacillus spp. were demonstrated only in the pentitol/non-CPP-ACP gum group.
conclusionAlthough these findings might indicate that a 30-day protocol of daily chewing of pentitol-sweetened gum containing no CPP-ACP might have some a reducing effect on the salivary levels of facultative bacteria, S. mutans and Lactobacillus spp., there was only a marginal, if any, benefit from the chewing gums under study on some microbiological caries- and gingivitis-related variables. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Taking into account that for transferring results into clinically relevant conclusions the findings need to be strong and consistent, adhering to single significant differences appears not appropriate. Hence, the clinical significance of chewing gums as an adjunctive tool for daily oral care remained questionable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.