ArticleCureus2024
Oral Bacteria Counter Using Dielectrophoretic Impedance Measurement: Usefulness and Usage Considerations.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Oral care for intubated patients in the intensive care unit: examination of bacterial count and microbiota.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe oral cavity hosts numerous bacteria that are associated with various systemic diseases. The Oral Bacteria Counter (PHC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), a microorganism quantitative analyzer that utilizes dielectrophoretic impedance measurements, enables rapid bacterial counting and is widely used in dental practice in Japan. However, it may also detect nonviable bacteria. This study aimed to assess the impact of disinfectants, electrolytes, and viscosity on the accuracy of the Oral Bacteria Counter and to determine whether it measures non-viable bacteria similarly to viable bacteria.
methodsTo evaluate the effect of the disinfectants, samples of 7% povidone-iodine (PV-I), 0.2% benzethonium chloride, 5% chlorhexidine (CHX), 0.2% CHX, 0.05% CHX, sterile water, and saline were measured using the Oral Bacteria Counter. The effect of viscosity was assessed by mixing sterile water with glycerol in various ratios and measuring the dielectrophoretic impedance of the bacterial counts at different viscosities. For the electrolyte effects, samples of
resultsDisinfectants such as 5% CHX and 7% PV-I produced high readings on the Oral Bacteria Counter, even when no viable bacteria were present. Higher glycerol concentrations, which increased the viscosity, resulted in lower bacterial counts. The presence of electrolytes, particularly saline, led to higher readings on the Oral Bacteria Counter, which detected both viable and non-viable bacteria, whereas DR-PCR and culture methods did not detect non-viable bacteria.
conclusionThe Oral Bacteria Counter may be influenced by disinfectants, viscosity, and electrolytes, leading to potential inaccuracies in bacterial quantification. For accurate bacterial measurements, it is essential to consider these factors and ideally combine the results from the Oral Bacteria Counter with methods such as DR-PCR for more reliable assessment.
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.