Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36416604›Full record

Trial reportOral health & preventive dentistry2022

Salivary Flow Rate During Toothbrushing.

Anina M Pulfer, Thomas Attin, Florian J Wegehaupt

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Compatibility of toothpastes with probiotics for periodontal health: anFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anina M Pulfer
Thomas Attin
Florian J Wegehaupt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the salivary flow rate and subsequent dilution of toothpaste and assess the pH of oral fluids during toothbrushing with toothpastes of various pHs. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe study was conducted as an in-vivo trial involving 30 healthy volunteers. The participants took part in a series of trials distributed over four appointments. After a screening check, in which the participants' stimulated and unstimulated salivary flow rate and buffering capacities were determined, four test series involving toothbrushing were conducted. Participants brushed their teeth using a manual toothbrush for 2 min: once without toothpaste and three times using toothpastes of varying pHs. The salivary flow rate and subsequent dilution of the toothpaste was determined. Additionally, the pH of the collected oral fluid was analysed.

resultsBrushing teeth with toothpaste caused a statistically significant increase in salivary flow rate (median/IQR in ml/min) (Elmex Kariesschutz 3.29/1.36, Colgate Total Original 3.23/1.08, Elmex Sensitive Professional 3.18/1.39) when compared to brushing teeth using a manual toothbrush without toothpaste (1.85/0.78) (p < 0.05). The variation in pH of the oral fluid samples was dictated primarily by the pH of the toothpaste used.

conclusionThe salivary flow rate when brushing using toothpaste was similar across all tested toothpastes, independent of pH, and had an average median of 3.23 ml/min. The dilution of 1 g of toothpaste during a standard toothbrushing procedure of 2 min is therefore approximately at a ratio of one part toothpaste to 6.5 parts saliva.

Indexed as

ToothbrushingToothpastesDiaminesFluoridesHumansDiaminesFluoridesOlaflurToothpasteshydrogen ion concentrationsalivasalivary flow ratetoothbrushingtoothpastes

Identifiers

PMID36416604
PMCPMC11640948
OpenAlexW4310298572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.