ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2023
Comparison of three fluids for calibration of the new Periotron® 8010.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the present study was to calibrate the Periotron® model 8010 with volumes of three different fluids (distilled water, serum, and saliva) and to identify which of the three is the most reliable, feasible, and reproducible for routine calibration. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 450 samples of Periopaper® were divided into three groups (150 each per group): distilled water, serum matrix and saliva. A calibration curve was run with 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00 and 1.25 µl of each of the fluids, and the results were determined in Periotron units (PU). Statistical analysis was performed with one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's post hoc test and a linear equation.
resultsDistilled water presented the lowest levels of PU at all volumes, while serum showed the highest levels at high volumes. Linear regression equations rendered similar slopes for saliva and distilled water, while serum was statistically different. Saliva presented a reproduction percentage of 99.7%, which indicated better accuracy and precision than serum and distilled water.
conclusionsSaliva is more reliable and accurate than water or serum for the purpose of calibration of the Periotron® model 8010, though it shares drawbacks with serum. Distilled water is more easily available and does not require any additional procedure, in addition to producing a similar slope to saliva and a smaller deviation from the media than serum.
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.