ArticleOdontology2025
Compatibility of salivary lactate dehydrogenase level using a test kit with the community periodontal index in Japanese adults.
Article in Odontology, 2025. 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.
- Prediction of Periodontal Disease Progression During Supportive Periodontal Therapy Using an Oral Fluid Lactate Dehydrogenase Activity-Based Test Strip.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Association between a body shape index (ABSI) and periodontal disease: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between salivary lactate dehydrogenase (LD) levels, assessed using a test kit, and the community periodontal index (CPI) and to determine the feasibility and reliability of the test kit for screening periodontal disease in adults. The study included 205 patients (58.5% female, median and 25-75 percentiles of age 55.0, 46.0-66.0 years) who visited two university hospitals and one university clinic in Japan. Resting saliva sample was collected from each participant, and LD level was evaluated in real time using a kit featuring an integer scale ranging from 1 to 10. Individual pocket scores were categorized as follows: score = 0 (≤ 3 mm), score = 1 (4-5 mm), and score = 2 (≥ 6 mm) and gingival bleeding scores were categorized as follows: score = 0 (absence of condition) and score = 1 (presence of condition). Notably, 120 participants (58.5%) exhibited a pocket score = 1 or 2, and 123 participants (60.0%) exhibited a gingival bleeding score = 1. The optimal cutoff values for salivary LD level to distinguish pocket scores = 1 or 2 from 0 and score = 2 from 0 or 1 were 4.0 and 5.0, respectively, with a sensitivity and specificity of ≥ 0.65. The median salivary LD level for a gingival score = 1 was significantly higher than that for gingival score = 0, and the optimal cutoff value for the salivary LD level was 4.0, with a sensitivity and specificity of ≥ 0.62. Our results suggested that a salivary LD level ≥ 4.0 in adults may suggest the presence of periodontal disease, thereby emphasizing the kit`s utility as a screening tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39643788What 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.