ArticleScientific reports2024
Standardization of the protocol for oral cavity examination and collecting of the biological samples for microbiome research using the next-generation sequencing (NGS): own experience with the COVID-19 patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbiome-Informed Precision Electroconvulsive Therapy: Oral-Gut-Immune Signatures and Seizure Biology as Candidate Predictors of Response-A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- From gut to mouth: salivary signatures of carcinogenic microbiota.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- An Overview of How HNCs Radiotherapy Affects Oral Microbiota: Shifts, Complications, and Management Strategies.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2026Review
- Comparable tongue coating microbiota profiles from a simplified single-swab versus different sampling approaches: A pilot study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Variations in oral health outcomes and mycobiome composition among COVID-19 convalescents.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Engineered Tissue Models to Decode Host-Microbiota Interactions.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Review
- Rapid diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing-based technologies in childhood pneumonia.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Effects of Mint Oils on the Human Oral Microbiome: A Pilot Study.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Mechanisms of crosstalk between the oropharyngeal microbiome and human papillomavirus in oropharyngeal carcinogenesis: a mini review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Microbes for lung cancer detection: feasibility and limitations.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To date, publications have shown that compositions of oral microbiota differ depending on their habitats (e.g. tongue, tonsils, pharynx). The absence of set standards for the choice of the areas and conditions of material collection makes the oral microbiome one of the most difficult environments for a comparative analysis with other researchers, which is a meaningful limitation during an assessment of the potential effects of microorganisms as biomarkers in the courses of various human diseases. Therefore, standardisation of basic conditions of a dental examination and collection of material for the next generation sequencing (NGS) is worth attempting. The standardisation of the dental exam and collection of the clinical materials: saliva, swab from the tongue ridge, hard palate, palatine tonsils and oropharynx, supragingival plaque and subgingival plaque. Protocol involved the patients (n = 60), assigned to 3 groups: I-COVID-19 convalescents who received antibiotics, n = 17, II-COVID-19 convalescents, n = 23 and III-healthy individuals, n = 20. The collected biological samples were used to conduct NGS (16S rRNA). The conditions of patient preparation for collecting biological materials as well as the schedule of dental examination, were proposed. Based on the research conducted, we have indicated the dental indicators that best differentiate the group of COVID-19 patients (groups I and II) from healthy people (group III). These include the DMFT, D and BOP indices. The use of alpha and beta diversity analysis provided an overall insight into the diversity of microbial communities between specific niches and patient groups. The most different diversity between the studied group of patients (group II) and healthy people (group III) was noted in relation to the supragingival plaque. The order of activities during the dental exam as well as while collecting and securing clinical materials is particularly important to avoid technical errors and material contamination which may result in erroneous conclusions from the analyses of the results of sensitive tests such as the NGS. It has been shown that the dental indices: DMFT, D number, PI and BOP are the best prognostic parameters to assess the oral health. Based on beta diversity the most sensitive niche and susceptible to changes in the composition of the microbiota is the supragingival plaque. The procedures developed by our team can be applied as ready-to-use forms in studies conducted by other researchers.
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.