Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37485503›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023

Probiotics for oral health: do they deliver what they promise?

Wannes Van Holm, Katalina Lauwens, Pieter De Wever, Art Schuermans, Naiera Zayed, Ferda Pamuk, Mehraveh Saghi, Pedro Fardim, Kristel Bernaerts, Nico Boon and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Postbiotics and Dental Caries: A Systematic Review.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Microorganisms · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

11 authors.

Wannes Van HolmDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, University of Leuven KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Katalina LauwensDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, University of Leuven KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Pieter De WeverBio-and Chemical Systems Technology, Reactor Engineering and Safety, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Leuven KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Art SchuermansFaculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Naiera ZayedDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, University of Leuven KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ferda PamukDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, University of Leuven KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Mehraveh SaghiDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, University of Leuven KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Pedro FardimBio-and Chemical Systems Technology, Reactor Engineering and Safety, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Leuven KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Kristel BernaertsBio-and Chemical Systems Technology, Reactor Engineering and Safety, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Leuven KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Nico BoonCentre for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Ghent University (UGent), Ghent, Belgium.
Wim TeughelsDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, University of Leuven KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Probiotics have demonstrated oral health benefits by influencing the microbiome and the host. Although promising, their current use is potentially constrained by several restrictions. One such limiting factor lies in the prevailing preparation of a probiotic product. To commercialize the probiotic, a shelf stable product is achieved by temporarily inactivating the live probiotic through drying or freeze drying. Even though a lyophilized probiotic can be kept dormant for an extended period of time, their viability can be severely compromised, making their designation as probiotics questionable. Additionally, does the application of an inactive probiotic directly into the oral cavity make sense? While the dormancy may allow for survival on its way towards the gut, does it affect their capacity for oral colonisation? To evaluate this, 21 probiotic product for oral health were analysed for the number of viable (probiotic), culturable (CFU) and dead (postbiotic) cells, to verify whether the commercial products indeed contain what they proclaim. After isolating and uniformly lyophilizing three common probiotic species in a simple yet effective lyoprotective medium, the adhesion to saliva covered hydroxyapatite discs of lyophilized probiotics was compared to fresh or reactivated lyophilized probiotics. Unfortunately, many of the examined products failed to contain the claimed amounts of viable cells, but also the strains used were inadequately characterized and lacked clinical evidence for that unknown strain, questioning their label of a 'probiotic'. Additionally, lyophilized probiotics demonstrated low adhesive capacity compared to their counterparts, prompting the question of why fresh or reactivated probiotics are not currently used.

Indexed as

adhesiondental cariesfreeze dryinglyophilizationoral healthperiodontitisprobioticviability

Identifiers

PMID37485503
PMCPMC10358723

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.