ArticleScientific reports2021
Comparison of three qPCR-based commercial tests for detection of periodontal pathogens.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- 1064 nm Nd:YAG versus 940 nm diode laser-assisted periodontal therapy in stage II periodontitis: a randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Personalized antibiotic selection in periodontal treatment improves clinical and microbiological outputs.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Trial
- Subgingival Microbial Profiles at Peri-Implant and Adjacent Tooth Sites: A Cross-Sectional Quantitative PCR Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- The Relationship between Age, Gender, BMI, Diet, Salivary pH and Periodontal Pathogenic Bacteria in Children and Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Study.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Correlation of Periodontal Bacteria with Chronic Inflammation Present in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2021Article
- Uncovering the Oral Dysbiotic Microbiota as Masters of Neutrophil Responses in the Pathobiology of Periodontitis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Review
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
In periodontal practice microbial results of periodontal test kits for identification of key pathogens are an aid in the treatment planning. Information on the performance of commercially available test kits is therefore essential for the clinician. In this retrospective analysis three commercially available qPCR kits for detection and quantification of selected periodontal bacterial species were compared, using 100 clinical samples from patients with untreated periodontitis. The analysis involved two separate comparisons in which kit A (LabOral Diagnostics, The Netherlands) was compared with kit B (Advanced Dental Diagnostics, The Netherlands), and with kit C (OralDent diagnostics, The Netherlands). Analytic procedures for detection and quantification of selected periodontal bacterial species were carried out according to the instructions of the laboratories. Kit A detected target species more often, and absolute numbers of bacterial cells were higher than with kit B. A high degree of similarity was found between the test outcomes by kit A and kit C. All three kits performed satisfactory but small and significant differences exist between kits.
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.