ArticleBMC oral health2025
A survey of Australian consumers' and dentists' perceptions of saliva as a biofluid for periodontitis diagnosis.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Assessing the willingness of Nigerian dentists to adopt salivary diagnostic kits: a pilot cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis survey aimed to explore the attitudes, knowledge, and acceptance levels of consumers and dentists towards saliva as a diagnostic tool for periodontitis, in order to identify the potential advantages and barriers to its implementation in periodontitis diagnosis.
methodsWith approved human ethics from The University of Queensland (2023/HE000413), this cross-sectional questionnaire study included 69 consumers and 32 clinicians, all of whom completed the survey between September 2023 and March 2024. We proposed a four-step saliva diagnosis workflow: (1) Collect saliva at home or in a dental clinic; (2) Send the sample to the laboratory for analysis; (3) Provide test results to the dentist and patient; (4) Schedule further consultation or treatment if necessary. Attitudes towards the proposed saliva diagnosis protocol were analysed in relation to consumers' demographic characteristics and clinicians' professional backgrounds.
resultsMost consumers surveyed were aged 20-29, while most clinicians (~ 56%) were general dentists. Approximately 80% of consumers expressed optimistic views on saliva diagnostics, whereas around 50% of clinicians were uncertain about the overall accuracy, despite recognizing the value of saliva tests. Both consumers and clinicians indicated that a chair-side or at-home rapid antigen test (RAT) could enhance the accuracy of saliva testing and address transport issues.
conclusionThe potential for saliva-based diagnostics for periodontitis shows promising acceptance among both consumers and clinicians. However, further modifications and specifications of the proposed workflow are needed to enhance its viability and accuracy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study highlights significant consumer interest in saliva diagnostics for periodontitis, indicating a preference for a shift toward personalised, non-invasive diagnostic methods. The mixed responses from clinicians highlight the need for ongoing education and evidence to foster confidence in saliva-based testing, potentially improving early detection and treatment outcomes in periodontal care.
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.