ArticleFolia microbiologica2016
Detection of selected periodontal bacteria in preschool children affected by early childhood caries.
Article in Folia microbiologica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the detection frequency of periodontal bacteria in dental plaque in children with early childhood caries (ECC) with and without gingival inflammation. A convenience sample of 25 preschool children (mean age 3.61 years, SD 1.42) was recruited. Dental plaque was taken from periodontal areas with and without visible signs of inflammation and processed using the StomaGene® (Protean s.r.o. Czech Republic) and ParoCheck® 20 (Greiner Bio-one GmbH, Germany) detection kits. The two sample t tests between percents for differences between inflammatory and healthy sites and kappa statistics for the agreement of both systems were used. At the inflammatory sites, Porphyromonas gingivalis and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans were significantly more frequently detected by StomaGene® while Fusobacterium nucleatum, A. actinomycetemcomitans, Tanarella forsythia and Prevotella intermedia were significantly more frequently identified by ParoCheck® test. The agreement between the two detection systems was substantial for A. actinomycetemcomitans and F. nucleatum in the samples collected from inflamed sites and only for F. nucleatum from clinically healthy sites. Therefore, we recommend that the same system should be used when the same patient is examined repeatedly.
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.