ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2019
DNA finger printing of
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application properties and biosafety enhancement in saliva collection: optimization of a non-blowing medical device.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Characterization of the Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide Biosynthesis Pathway and Regulatory Mechanisms in Streptococcus mutans.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2025Article
- Genotypic and phenotypic characterization ofIranian journal of microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study is, to evaluate and compare the diversity of MATERIALS AND
methodsGenotyping of
resultsNumber of bacterial counts in Group I showed a mean of 111.6500 followed by the Group II with a mean of 102.6500. Therefore, the difference in the number of bacterial counts was not significant between the two groups (p < 0.001). Genotype encoding Primer 1 was present in almost 82.5% of the total population of both groups. Genotype encoding Primer 2 was present in 95% of the total population. Whereas, Genotype encoding Primer 3 was present in 20% of children associated with intellectual disability and 95% of normal children. INTERPRETATION AND
conclusionThere was no significant difference in
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.