Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40243876›Full record

ArticleBrazilian dental journal2025

Evaluation of wooden spatula and plastic pipette methods for caries risk assessment in infants and toddlers.

Silvina Tineo, Paulo Nelson-Filho, Thais Citolino Barbosa, José Maria Alvarez Gimenez, Raquel Assed Bezzera da Silva, Lea Assed Bezzera da Silva, Marta Estela Saravia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Silvina TineoDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, School of Dentistry, National University of Tucumán, San Miguel de Tucuman, Tucumán, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0002-7268-3360
Paulo Nelson-FilhoPediatric Dentistry Department, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8802-6480
Thais Citolino BarbosaPediatric Dentistry Department, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5197-0985
José Maria Alvarez GimenezDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, School of Dentistry, National University of Tucumán, San Miguel de Tucuman, Tucumán, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0002-8129-9600
Raquel Assed Bezzera da SilvaPediatric Dentistry Department, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0230-1347
Lea Assed Bezzera da SilvaPediatric Dentistry Department, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7118-6859
Marta Estela SaraviaDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, School of Dentistry, National University of Tucumán, San Miguel de Tucuman, Tucumán, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0002-3312-9957

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Dental CariesSalivaStreptococcus mutansChild, PreschoolColony Count, MicrobialFemaleHumansInfantMaleRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID40243876
PMCPMC11996158

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.