ArticleBrazilian dental journal2025
Evaluation of wooden spatula and plastic pipette methods for caries risk assessment in infants and toddlers.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to compare two different methods (wooden spatula and plastic pipette) for the collection of unstimulated saliva for colony counting of Mutans Streptococci species (MS) (microbiological caries risk), in infants and toddlers. The children's behavior was favorable (very comfortable or comfortable) and unfavorable (uncomfortable or very uncomfortable), while the saliva collection, was also evaluated. Saliva samples were obtained from 19 children aged 1-29 months, of both sexes and seeded by both methods, obtaining the MS CFU numbers. The ANOVA test was used to statistically analyze the microbiological results, and the Z-test and chi-square test were used to analyze the behavioral assessment (α= 0,05%). 63.1% and 57.9% of children had MS in their saliva, using the saliva collection techniques with a spatula and a pipette, respectively. The number of CFUs was an average of 10.47 for saliva collected with the spatula and 7.32 for saliva collected with the pipette, however, there was no statistical difference between the methods (p=0.696653). Comparing the ages 1-6 months and 18-29 months, the older children showed higher CFU numbers, for both methods (p=0.000383). The clinical assessment of the child's behavior demonstrated a significant statistical difference between the two methods, with more positive behavior for the spatula (p<0.001). In conclusion, the wooden spatula method can be used for saliva collection and quantifying of the MS levels in infants and toddlers, since there was no significant difference in the CFUs count, furthermore is better accepted based on the child's behavior, compared to the plastic pipette technique.
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.