ArticleEuropean oral research2026
Investigation of the relationship between caries predisposition and salivary characteristics.
Article in European oral research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT) scores, caries activity, and salivary characteristics (flow rate, pH, and buffering capacity) in patients admitted to the Department of Restorative Dentistry at Kocaeli University Faculty of Dentistry. Materials and methods: This study included 44 patients aged 18-50 years, classified into high and low caries risk groups, who presented to our clinic. A DMFT score above 8 and the presence of at least two active carious lesions with cavitation (ICDAS II Categories 5 or 6) were considered criteria for the high caries risk group. Conversely, patients with five or fewer carious or restored teeth and no active caries were classified as low caries risk. Saliva samples were collected prior to any restorative procedures. Salivary flow rate, pH, and buffering capacity were measured using the Saliva-Check Buffer Kit (GC Europe, Leuven, Belgium). The correlation between caries activity and salivary buffering capacity was analyzed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Tukey's and Mann-Whitney U tests were applied for pairwise comparisons. Results: The highest buffering capacity was observed in the high-risk group aged 25-50 years, while the lowest was found in the high-risk group aged 18-25 years (p = 0.028). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of both unstimulated and stimulated salivary flow rates. Conclusion: In the absence of pathological conditions, a physiologically low salivary flow rate does not appear to significantly influence caries risk. A meaningful relationship between salivary factors and caries risk becomes evident only when salivary flow is severely reduced.
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.