ArticleBMC oral health2024
Investigating oral microbiome profiles in patients with cleft lip and palate compared with the healthy control.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the oral microbiome in children with oral diseases using next-generation sequencing: a systematic review.Journal of oral microbiology · 2026Review
- Investigating oral microbiome profiles of children with cleft lip and palate in different states of caries.Journal of oral microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) have an oronasal communication differed from the closed state in healthy individuals, leading to a unique oral microbiome. This study aimed to determine if variances in the oral microbiota persist among CLP patients who have received treatments for the closure of these fistulas compared to the microbiota of healthy individuals.
methodsSaliva samples were collected from a cohort comprising 28 CLP patients (CLP group) and 30 healthy controls (HC group). Utilizing 16S rRNA sequencing on the Illumina NovaSeq platform, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the diversity and composition of the oral microbiota.
resultsThe analysis of the microbiota in the saliva samples revealed a total of 23 microbial phyla, 38 classes, 111 orders, 184 families, 327 genera and 612 species. The alpha diversity with microbial abundance and evenness indicated the significant difference between the CLP and HC groups. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) and the ADONIS test further supported the presence of distinct microorganisms between the two groups. The CLP group displayed elevated abundances of Neisseria, Haemophilus, Porphyromonas, and Granulicatella, as indicated by LefSe analysis. Conversely, Rothia, Veillonella, and Pauljensenia exhibited significant reductions in abundance in the CLP group. The results of the PICRUSt analysis indicated significant differences in the relative abundance of 25 KEGG pathways within the CLP group. Through Spearman correlation analysis, strong associations between Rothia, Veillonella, and Pauljensenia and 25 functional pathways linked to CLP were identified.
conclusionFindings of this study offer a thorough comprehension of the microbiome profiles of CLP patients after the restoration of oronasal structure and are anticipated to present innovative concepts for the treatment of CLP.
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.