ArticleBMC oral health2023
Salivary macrophage chemokines as potential biomarkers of gingivitis.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe present study aimed to analyze the salivary levels of macrophage-activating factor (MAF), macrophage-chemotactic factor (MCF), and macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) in healthy and gingivitis patients, and to correlate between the concentrations of these chemo attractants with the intensity of gingival inflammation clinically.
methodsSixty saliva specimens were collected from periodontally healthy (n = 30), and gingivitis patients (n = 30). Bleeding on probing (BOP), Visible Plaque Index (VPI), and Simplified Modified Gingival Index (SMGI) were recorded through clinical examination. Salivary MAF, MCF, and MIF concentrations were assayed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 28). Total mean score for each biomarker was determined, and descriptive bivariate statistics were conducted to characterize the levels of biomarkers among the study groups. The difference in the biomarker levels among the study groups were analyzed by independent sample t test and one-way ANOVA. The diagnostic ability of the biomarkers was further tested by ROC curve analysis.
resultsSalivary levels of MAF was not significantly different between periodontally healthy individuals and gingivitis patients. The difference in MCF and MIF levels between patients with gingivitis and those with healthy periodontium was statistically significant (p 0.05 and p 0.001, respectively). When examined across the various stages of disease progression, MIF showed statistically significant difference among the three biomarkers (p 0.05). ROC curve analysis further revealed that area under the curve (AUC) for MIF has a better diagnostic capacity than MCF (AUC 0.981 vs. 0.673).
conclusionsOur results suggest that MIF could be considered as a potential salivary biomarker for gingivitis.
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.