ArticleBMC oral health2026
Detection of periodontopathogens in umbilical cord blood and their correlation with the maternal bacterial profile.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaternal periodontal disease is a prevalent condition that has been widely investigated for its association with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and low birth weight. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical and microbiological oral conditions of high-risk and low-risk pregnant women and to correlate these findings with the presence of periodontopathogenic microorganisms in the oral cavity and umbilical cord blood of their newborns.
methodsA total of 54 pregnant women and their respective newborns were evaluated during the perinatal period and allocated into two groups: a high-risk pregnancy group and a control group. High-risk pregnancy was defined according to criteria established by the Brazilian Ministry of Health, including systemic and obstetric risk conditions. Maternal clinical assessment included the following periodontal parameters: visible plaque index (VPI), gingival bleeding index (GBI), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Microbiological samples were collected from oral soft tissues (tongue and cheek swabs) and subgingivally (using size 30 sterile paper points). Umbilical cord blood was collected immediately after clamping, and oral microbiological samples from the newborns were obtained using swabs. The presence of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), and Tannerella forsythia (Tf) was investigated using real-time PCR. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, and Spearman's correlation tests to explore associations between clinical and microbiological data. The chi-square test was used for categorical data.
resultsEvidence of periodontal disease was observed in both groups, with a statistically significant increase in the detection of Aa in the maternal oral samples from women in the high-risk group (p = 0.042). A positive correlation was also found between CAL and the presence of Tf in subgingival samples, indicating that higher CAL values were associated with greater bacterial load (p < 0.05). However, no statistically significant associations were identified between maternal periodontal status and adverse obstetric outcomes (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe detection of periodontopathogenic microorganisms in umbilical cord blood and neonatal oral samples suggests the possibility of maternal-fetal microbial transmission, although no association was observed with adverse obstetric outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42464245What 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.