ReviewFrontiers in oral health2026
The effects of probiotics intervention on oral health outcomes: a comprehensive umbrella review of meta-analyses.
Review in Frontiers in oral health, 2026. 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.
- Effect of a sodium fluoride rinse on the composition of early oral biofilms formed in situ on enamel and dentine.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Probiotics are proposed adjuncts for oral health, but findings from meta-analyses are inconsistent. We conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses to synthesize evidence on probiotics' effects on cariogenic bacteria such as Methods: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched up to October 2025 for meta-analyses of clinical trials investigating the effect of probiotics on oral health outcomes. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data on strains, doses, durations, and pooled effect estimates, and assessed review quality using AMSTAR-2. Directions and key pooled estimates reported in included meta-analyses were summarized. Results: Eleven meta-analyses met inclusion criteria, encompassing participants from infancy to adulthood (reported mean/median ages 0.2-42.5 years), probiotic doses reported between ∼5 × 10 Conclusions: Evidence suggests modest benefits of certain probiotic strains on cariogenic bacteria and halitosis, but heterogeneity, surrogate outcomes, and moderate review quality limit certainty. High-quality, strain-specific RCTs with standardized clinical endpoints are needed.
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.