ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Caries Index and Salivary Factors in Children: A Case-Control Study.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Salivary pH within multifactorial caries risk assessment in children: observational clinical evidence using the Cariogram platform.Frontiers in 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDental caries is currently the most common chronic disease affecting the Spanish pediatric population. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to assess Caries Management by Risk Assessment (CAMBRA) in children attending a university dental clinic between the ages of 6 and 12 and establish the DMFT (decayed, missing, and filled teeth index for permanent teeth) of the sample. In addition, the study calculated the plaque index, salivary pH level, buffering capacity, and the quantity and quality of saliva in the sample and determined if there were statistical differences between sexes and between subgroups with DMFT = 0 (control) and DMFT > 0 (cases).
methodsA case-control study was conducted with 89 patients aged 6 to 12 years. Clinical and salivary indicators were measured. Caries risk was also assessed using the CAMBRA protocol, and the sample was also divided into control and case groups for further analysis.
resultsThe CAMBRA questionnaire showed that 65.2% of participants presented a high risk of caries. The sample showed an average DMFT of 0.65 with a plaque index of 57.2%. The mean salivary pH was 7.35 (±0.30). The average volume of stimulated saliva was 6.83 mL (±3.68), and the buffering capacity was classified as normal in 57% of cases. No statistically significant differences were found between sexes or in the evaluated risk factors. In the control group, the mean salivary pH value was 7.35, and the amount of stimulated saliva was 6.5 mL. The buffering capacity was classified as normal in 67% of cases. In contrast, the case group presented a mean pH value of 7.15 and a salivary volume of 5 mL, with a normal buffer capacity in 50% of cases.
conclusionsThe CAMBRA protocol indicated that more than half of the participants presented a high risk of caries, indicating the need to customize treatment plans for each patient. The salivary pH showed statistic differences between the control and case groups, indicating the importance of incorporating salivary biomarkers into routine clinical practice.
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.