ReviewCureus2023
Oral Microbiome as a Tool of Systemic Disease on Cleft Patients: A New Landscape.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral health in patients with cleft lip and palate: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of periodontal and dental disease and oral microbiota (part 1).BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Photoinduced Fluorescence Changes in Selected Bacterial Strains Under 405 nm Laser Excitation: An In Vitro Hue-Based Monitoring Approach.Micromachines · 2026Article
- Prophylactic Antibiotic Therapy in Cleft Surgery-A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Silver nanoparticles incorporated dental restorative resin and its antibiofilm effect.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Characterization and functional prediction of the dental plaque microbiome in patients with alveolar clefts.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The oral cavity microbiome comprises benign and pathogenic bacteria, with more than 700 species identified. However, the current literature regarding resident bacterial flora in the oropharyngeal cavities in cleft lip/palate (CLP) patients still needs to be completed. This review aims to evaluate the role of the oral microbiome of cleft patients as an indicator in systemic diseases for which cleft patients might be at higher risk in the short or long term. A literature review was performed in July 2020 using Biomedical Reference Collection Comprehensive, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Complete, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source via Elton B. Stephens Company/Online Database (EBSCO), Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), and PubMed. The keywords used were "oral, bacteria, microbiome, biota, flora, cleft, palate." The resulting 466 articles were deduplicated using Endnote. The total amount of articles' abstracts without duplicates was filtered using a set criterion. The title and abstract filter criteria included 1) cleft lip (CL) and/or cleft palate (CP) patients, 2) changes in the oral microbiome in CL and/or CP patients, 3) male and female patients 0-21 years old, and 4) English language. The full-text filter criteria included 1) CL and/or CP patients vs. non-cleft control patients, 2) oral bacteria, 3) nonprocedural measurements of microorganisms, and 4) case-control studies. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart was created using the EndNote data results. The final five articles of the systematic search indicated that the oral cavity of cleft lip and/or palate patients resulted in 1) contradicting levels of
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.