ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Impact of
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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: Salivary glycoproteins contribute to enamel protection, lubrication, and microbial regulation, making them useful biochemical indicators of oral health. Objective: To evaluate the impact of Methods: In this double-blind, parallel-group randomized trial, 40 adults aged 18-40 years (DMFT >3) were assigned to use either CNO mouthwash (10 mL, 10 min daily) or amine fluoride (AF) mouthwash (15 mL, 1 min daily) for 28 days. Unstimulated saliva was collected at baseline and day 28 to assess total protein, MUC5B, albumin, globulin, and amylase. Salivary glycoproteins and total salivary protein may reflect different aspects of oral biochemical defence and should be interpreted independently. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 23.0. Within-group comparisons were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, while between-group comparisons were performed using the Mann-Whitney Results: Both mouthwashes produced modest biochemical changes after 28 days. CNO resulted in a statistically significant increase in total salivary protein compared with amine fluoride (p = 0.035). No significant between-group differences were observed for MUC5B, albumin, globulin, or amylase. Conclusion: CNO mouthwash produced a modest increase in total salivary protein; however, specific glycoproteins showed no significant changes. These results provide preliminary biochemical evidence only, and no clinical inferences regarding caries prevention or oral defense can be made. Larger trials with clinical endpoints are required.
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.