ArticleJournal of cancer prevention2015
Assessment of Salivary Flow Rate and pH Among Areca Nut Chewers and Oral Submucous Fibrosis Subjects: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of cancer prevention, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of salivary flow rate in patients with oral submucous fibrosis before and after transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- An organoid-guided roadmap for precision delivery of epigallocatechin gallate in oral submucous fibrosis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Comparative Analysis of Taste Perception Among Airline Pilots, Construction Workers, and Office Employees.Cureus · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Salivary Opiorphin, pH and Flow Rate in Oral Submucous Fibrosis - A Case - Control Observational Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2023Article
- Impact of Ramadan Intermittent Fasting on Salivary pH, Flow Rate, and Electrolyte Levels in Healthy Adult Men.American journal of men's healthArticle
- Comparison of salivary flow rate and pH between healthy subjects and tobacco and areca nut chewers.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPArticle
- Relationship of Clinical Features with Candidal Carriage in Oral Submucous Fibrosis Patients: A Case-control Study.Contemporary clinical dentistryArticle
- Comparative evaluation of alteration in taste perception among Gutkha chewers with and without OSMF and healthy subjects: A prospective case-control study.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPArticle
- Habit-associated salivary pH changes in oral submucous fibrosis: A cross-sectional study.National journal of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess and compare the salivary flow rate (SFR) and salivary pH among areca nut chewers, oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF) patients and apparently healthy individuals.
methodsA comparative study was conducted to assess and compare the SFR and pH among 135 outpatients (45 areca nut chewers + 45 OSMF + 45 control) at The Oxford Dental College and Research Hospital, Bangalore, India. Subjects were interviewed using structural proforma and Modified Schirmer strips and pH paper were implemented for assessing SFR and pH respectively. Statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS ver. 21.0 software.
resultsA statistically significant increase in SFR (35.7 mm at 3rd minutes) among areca nut group and a decrease in SFR among OSMF group (23.4 mm at 3rd minutes) when compared to apparently healthy subjects (30.7 mm at 3rd minutes). The mean pH among areca nut, OSMF and control groups was 6.76, 6.82, and 6.74 respectively with no statistical significance.
conclusionsThe observation and findings of the study clearly showed hypersalivation among areca nut group and hyposalivation among OSMF group, with no significant change in salivary pH when compared to healthy subjects.
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.