ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Efficacy of artificial saliva in preventing oral changes in patients admitted to the ICU: a controlled clinical trial.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
- Photobiomodulation for salivary gland dysfunction: aligning clinical expectations with etiology-dependent treatment responsiveness.Lasers in medical science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of prophylactic artificial saliva application on the prevention of oral changes in patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis controlled clinical trial was conducted in an ICU between October 2024 and May 2025. Patients were assigned to an Experimental Group (EG), which received topical artificial saliva after standard oral hygiene, and a Control Group (CG), which underwent oral hygiene only. Statistical analyses were performed using Jamovi, SPSS, and Stata. Fisher’s exact test, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis with log-rank test, and Poisson regression were applied, adopting a significance level of p < 0.05.
resultsAmong the 46 patients analyzed (21 in EG and 25 in CG), oral changes occurred in 61% during hospitalization. The Control Group developed significantly more lesions than the Experimental Group (p = 0.023), showing a 29% higher occurrence of changes. Oral candidiasis (24.1%) and dry mouth (20.2%) were more frequent in the CG, whereas traumatic ulceration predominated in the EG (51.6%).
conclusionThe prophylactic use of artificial saliva was associated with a lower occurrence of oral changes in critically ill patients and may represent a simple and potentially cost-effective supportive intervention in the ICU setting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings suggest that prophylactic use of artificial saliva may contribute to reducing oral complications in critically ill patients. As a simple and low-cost intervention, it has the potential to support oral care strategies in ICU settings; however, further studies are needed to confirm its effectiveness and inform clinical protocols.
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.