ArticleJournal of oral microbiology2026
Investigating oral microbiome profiles of children with cleft lip and palate in different states of caries.
Article in Journal of oral microbiology, 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
Objective: To investigate the characteristics of oral salivary microbiota in children with cleft lip and palate (CLP) under different states of caries. Methods: Based on the presence or absence of CLP and the total number of decayed, missing and filled surfaces, 105 participants were divided into four groups: children with CLP and high caries (CLP-HC), children with CLP and low caries (CLP-LC), children without CLP but with high caries (NCLP-HC) and children without CLP but with low caries (NCLP-LC). Saliva samples from them were analyzed using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Results: Alpha diversity differed significantly among the four groups with Ace and Chao indices, but not with Shannon and Simpson. Principal coordinate analysis based on the Weighted-UniFrac distance matrix showed no significant differences among the four groups, while results from the Unweighted-UniFrac distance matrix revealed significant differences. CLP-HC and CLP-LC had significantly higher Microbial Dysbiosis Index than NCLP-LC. LEfSe analysis was performed for pairwise comparisons, identifying differentially enriched bacterial genera among groups. Network analysis based on Spearman correlation revealed the interaction characteristics of microbial communities in different groups. Conclusions: Differences in microbial features were observed among the four groups, which could provide new insights for personalized oral health management for CLP patients.
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.