ArticleActa odontologica latinoamericana : AOL2022
Saliva sampling methods. Cariogenic streptococci count using two different methods of saliva collection in children.
Article in Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extensive comparison of salivary collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Salivary Biomarkers in Periodontal Disease: Revolutionizing Early Detection and Precision Dentistry.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2025Review
- Salivary Markers as Potential Stress Descriptors for Pediatric Dental Patients: A Literature Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Evaluation of wooden spatula and plastic pipette methods for caries risk assessment in infants and toddlers.Brazilian dental journal · 2025Article
- Review
- Saliva Collection Methods Among Children and Adolescents: A Scoping Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2024Article
- Application of Three Compounds Extracted fromBiomolecules · 2023Article
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
Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of two methods for collecting saliva samples from infants under 2 years of age for cariogenic streptococci (CS) count. Two collection methods were applied in 11 infants. In Method (A), saliva samples were collected by swabbing the inner cheek mucosa and floor of the mouth in figure of eight motions with a sterile cotton swab until it was soaked. In method (B), saliva samples were collected by aspiration of 1 ml of saliva with a sterile plastic syringe on the floor of the mouth, after stimulation with glove. The samples were cultured in modified Gold's broth (MSMG), and on trypticase, yeast extract, sucrose, cystine and bacitracin culture medium (TYSCB). In method (A), the swab with the sample was unloaded in situ on TYSCB and placed in PBS medium for transport. Then, 100 μl of the eluate was seeded in MSMG. In method (B) 100 μl were seeded in TYSCB and 100 μl in MSMG. Both culture media were incubatedundercapnophilicconditions for 48 hours at 37 °C. Colony forming units (CFU/ml) were counted by calibrated operators (kappa = 0.75). The presence of cariogenic streptococci (CS) (Streptococcus mutans-Streptococcus sobrinus) was determined by qPCR in the samples collected by both methods. The CFU/ml counts in MSMG differed significantly between methods (p = 0.021). In TYSCB, the recovery of CFU/ml was higher in method (A), without significant difference (p = 0.705). The molecular technique detected presence of CS, with no difference between collection methods. Collecting saliva samples by swabbing proved more effective in terms of recovery of microorganisms, and did not affect the detection of presence of CS by molecular techniques.
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.