ArticleJournal of dental sciences2026
Bacterial counts in saliva of patients with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Cross-sectional research.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Dysphagia in older adults requiring long-term care often necessitates nutritional management via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Although PEG effectively prevents food aspiration, it does not mitigate the risk of silent saliva aspiration, leaving patients vulnerable to aspiration pneumonia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bacterial count in the saliva of PEG users. Materials and methods: This study included 13 PEG users and 13 oral feeders residing in a facility for individuals with disabilities. We investigated the participants' age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, oral wetness, Oral Hygiene Index Debris Index (OHI-DI), Winkel Tongue Coating Index (WTCI), number of teeth, and denture use. We also measured the number of bacteria in the saliva using the real-time polymerase chain reaction. Results: The study population comprised 12 men and 14 women. The oral feeding group had an average age of 61.9 years, whereas the PEG group had a lower average age of 50.6 years. The PEG group exhibited lower OHI-DI scores compared to the oral feeding group. However, the salivary bacterial count in the PEG group was over 10 times higher than that in oral feeders. Multivariate analysis revealed a higher salivary bacterial load in PEG users than in oral feeders, independent of oral hygiene indicators such as OHI-DI, oral wetness, and WTCI. Conclusion: PEG users demonstrated significantly higher salivary bacterial counts than oral feeders.
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.