Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39025888›Full record

ArticleNPJ biofilms and microbiomes2024

Topical prebiotic nitrate: optimizing the 'hang-time', source and dose for specific oral or systemic effects.

Bob T Rosier, Alex Mira

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ biofilms and microbiomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Bob T RosierDepartment of Genomics and Health, FISABIO Foundation, Valencia, Spain. bob.rosier@fisabio.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3267-6561
Alex MiraDepartment of Genomics and Health, FISABIO Foundation, Valencia, Spain. alex.mira@fisabio.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In our opinion, the 'hang-time' of nitrate-containing products discussed in the letter by Green and Green is an interesting variable that should be considered when nitrate-based treatment or prevention strategies are designed. However, due to direct nitrate recycling after nitrate intake, products with a long 'hang-time' (e.g., chewing gum) may not always have an advantage compared to products with a short 'hang-time' (e.g., vegetable juices). We argue that extending the 'hang-time' is especially relevant and potentially beneficial for different applications, such as using a low nitrate dose to stimulate the oral effects, reaching oral tissues that may otherwise not be exposed to dietary nitrate (e.g., periodontal pockets), and providing a longer nitrate exposure in individuals with an impaired salivary flow. Apart from the 'hang-time', other important variables are the nitrate dose and source (e.g., different salts and vegetable extracts), as well as the desired effect (e.g., an oral effect versus systemic effects). Finally, we believe that the alterations in salivary microbiota observed before and after chewing three nitrate-rich gums over a period of ~5 h, as reported by Green and Green, could be considered beneficial. However, the oral microbiota composition is affected by the circadian rhythm and the effect of gum mastication should be evaluated. These results should thus be confirmed by a placebo-controlled study, where these confounding factors can be accounted for.

Indexed as

NitratesPrebioticsSalivaAdministration, TopicalChewing GumFruit and Vegetable JuicesHumansMicrobiotaMouthChewing GumNitratesPrebiotics

Identifiers

PMID39025888
PMCPMC11258277

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.