Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38668028›Full record

ArticleDentistry journal2024

Clinical Use of Paraprobiotics for Pregnant Women with Periodontitis: Randomized Clinical Trial.

Andrea Butera, Maurizio Pascadopoli, Maria Gloria Nardi, Chiara Ogliari, Alessandro Chiesa, Camilla Preda, Giulia Perego, Andrea Scribante

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Tongluo Jiedu as an adjuvant therapy for oral cancer.World journal of clinical cases · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Andrea ButeraUnit of Dental Hygiene, Section of Dentistry, Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2457-4415
Maurizio PascadopoliUnit of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Section of Dentistry, Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1690-4904
Maria Gloria NardiUnit of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Section of Dentistry, Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3464-5291
Chiara OgliariPoliclinico San Matteo, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
Alessandro ChiesaUnit of Dental Hygiene, Section of Dentistry, Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
Camilla PredaUnit of Dental Hygiene, Section of Dentistry, Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
Giulia PeregoUnit of Dental Hygiene, Section of Dentistry, Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
Andrea ScribanteUnit of Dental Hygiene, Section of Dentistry, Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2760-0124

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Periodontal disease is very common in pregnant women. Paraprobiotics are a subset of probiotics. They can be defined as inactivated microbial cells providing health benefits to the host and are considered particularly safe. The aim of this study was to compare the periodontal health of pregnant women and puerperae after 6 months of home use of paraprobiotics. A total of 30 pregnant women were enrolled and divided into two groups: the test group, who had to use a paraprobiotic-based toothpaste (Biorepair Peribioma Pro, Coswell S.p.A., Funo di Argelato, BO, Italy) and mousse (Mousse Mouthwash Biorepair Peribioma, Coswell S.p.A.) twice a day, and the control group, who had to use only the paraprobiotic-based toothpaste. The time frames of the study were: 1 month (T1), 3 months (T2) and 6 months (T3), and data were collected during pregnancy and in the period immediately following delivery. The following indices were evaluated at T0, T1, T2 and T3: clinical attachment loss (CAL), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque control record (PCR), modified marginal gingival index (mMGI), papillary marginal gingival index (PMGI) and recessions (R). All data were subjected to statistical analysis. PCR decreased significantly from T0 to T1 in the control group and from T0 to T2 and from T0 to T3 in the test group. BOP tended to decrease in both groups, but a significant reduction was observed only in the test group. CAL, PPD, PMGI and mMGI tended to decrease gradually in both groups without significant differences between or within groups. The combination of the paraprobiotic-based toothpaste and the paraprobiotic-based mousse significantly reduced BoP and plaque control over time, although there were no significant differences with the use of the paraprobiotic-based toothpaste alone. In addition, the combination of the two products promoted a trend towards the better stabilization of recessions.

Indexed as

gingivitisparaprobioticsperiodontal diseasepregnancypregnant women

Identifiers

PMID38668028
PMCPMC11049446

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.