Trial reportHead & face medicine2018
Clinical comparison of liquid-based and conventional cytology of oral brush biopsies: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Head & face medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cytopathological quantification of NORs using artificial intelligence to oral cancer screening.Brazilian oral research · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Head and Neck Cancer: Innovations, Applications, and Future Directions.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Emerging Diagnostic Modalities in Oral Cancer Detection and Management.Galen medical journal · 2024Review
- Sampling Methods and their Prospects in Liquid-Based Cytology of Oral Mucosa: A Comparative Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2023Article
- Evaluation of oral brush liquid-based cytology for oral squamous cell carcinoma: a comparative study of cytological and histological diagnoses at a single center.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Early Diagnosis of Oral Mucosal Alterations in Smokers and E-Cigarette Users Based on Micronuclei Count: A Cross-Sectional Study among Dental Students.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Comparison between two cell collecting methods for liquid-based brush biopsies: a consecutive and retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2021Article
- Clinical study on primary screening of oral cancer and precancerous lesions by oral cytology.Diagnostic pathology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the Accuracy of Liquid-Based Oral Brush Cytology in Screening for Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Cancers · 2019Article
- Bacterial Colonization and Tissue Compatibility of Denture Base Resins.Dentistry journal · 2018Article
- Utility of Indigenous Cytology Technique in the Diagnosis of Oral Cavity Lesions using Normal Saline as a Processing Fluid: A Comparative Study.Journal of cytologyArticle
- Liquid-based cytology in the diagnosis of oral pre-cancer, cancer, and other oral lesions - A narrative review.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPReview
- A systematic scoping review on utility of cytomorphometry in the detection of dysplasia in oral potentially malignant disorders.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
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
backgroundExfoliative cytology performed on oral brush samples can help dentists to decide, whether a given oral lesion is (pre-) malignant. The use of non-invasive brush biopsies as an auxiliary tool in the diagnosis of oral mucosal lesions has gained renewed interest since improvements in cytological techniques such as the development of adjuvant diagnostic tools and liquid-based cell preparation techniques.
methodsThe aim of this study was to compare the quality of two different preparation techniques (cell collectors): the conventional transfer procedure to glass slides and the so-called liquid-based cytology preparation method. Cell smears were collected from 10 orally healthy individuals (mean age: 24 years) from the palatine mucosa at two different times (baseline and 4 weeks later). Slides of both techniques were stained by Giemsa (n = 40) and May-Gruenwald Giemsa (n = 40). The statistical analysis was performed with Excel.
resultsOn specimen analysis, the liquid-based cytology showed statistically significant improvement compared to conventional glass sides (p < 0.001). Thin layers, which were performed by liquid-based cytology showed significantly better results in the parameters (p < 0.001): uniform distribution, cellular overlapping, cellular disformation, mucus, microbial colonies and debris. The conventional glass slides approach showed more cell overlapping and contamination with extraneous material than thin layers, which were performed by Orcellex® Brush cell collectors.
conclusionsBoth techniques are diagnostically reliable. The liquid-based method showed an overall improvement on sample preservation, specimen adequacy, visualization of cell morphology and reproducibility. Liquid-based cytology simplifies cell collection due to easier handling and less transfer errors by dentists.
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.