Trial reportOral health & preventive dentistry2022
Salivary Flow Rate During Toothbrushing.
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.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Salivary flow measurements in a clinical setting: the Dutch consensus statement.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Safety-constrained evaluation of antibacterial multicomponent borate glasses.Biomaterials and biosystems · 2026Article
- Prevention of erosive, abrasive and erosive/abrasive tooth wear by a high-concentration fluoride dentifrice: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of different dilution levels of toothpastes on the abrasive wear on enamel and dentin in in-vitro studies.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Compatibility of toothpastes with probiotics for periodontal health: anFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- In vitro study on the preventive effect of children's toothpastes on erosive tooth wear of primary bovine enamel and dentin.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.