Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24881216›Full record

ArticleHua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology2014

[Analysis of the oral microbiota in twin children].

Qin Du, Yan Wang, Xin Xu, Yuqing Li, Mingyun Li, Jing Zou, Xuedong Zhou

Abstract readTwin Study
In one paragraph

Article in Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Expert consensus on early childhood caries management.International journal of oral science · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Qin Du
Yan Wang
Xin Xu
Yuqing Li
Mingyun Li
Jing Zou
Xuedong Zhou

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo analyze the differences between the oral microbiota of monozygotic and dizygotic twins by polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE).

methodsA total of 20 pairs of twin children were included in this study, in which 10 pairs were monozygotic (MZ) twins, and 10 pairs were dizygotic (DZ) twins. Of the 20 pairs, 10 pairs of twins had primary dentition, and 10 pairs had mixed dentition; 17 children had caries, and 23 children had no caries. Genomic DNA was extracted from saliva samples. The 16s rRNA was amplified and analyzed by PCR-DGGE. The PCR-DGGE band number and Shannon index were calculated.

resultsCluster analysis showed high similarity in the oral bacterial community seen in co-twins. However, no significant difference was seen between MZ and DZ twins. In the primary dentition, the PCR-DGGE band number and Shannon index of children with caries (11.00 +/- 1.56, 1.05 +/- 0.36) were lower than those of children without caries (14.00 +/- 2.74, 1.44 +/- 0.37) (P < 0.05). In mixed dentition, the PCR-DGGE band number and Shannon index of children with caries (11.88 +/- 4.05, 1.18 +/- 0.36) were lower than those of children without caries (14.31 +/- 5.71, 1.28 +/- 0.47), but the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).

conclusionEnvironmental factors may have a stronger effect on the constitution of oral microbiota in children compared with genetic factors. Children without caries may have a richer microbial diversity compared with children with caries.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SBacteriaChildDenaturing Gradient Gel ElectrophoresisDental CariesFemaleHumansMaleMouthPolymerase Chain ReactionSalivaTwins, MonozygoticRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID24881216
PMCPMC7030792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.