ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Impact of sudanese chewing tobacco toombak on oral bacteria - a culture-based pilot study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigated the impact of the Sudanese smokeless tobacco Toombak on cultivable oral bacteria, its potential antibacterial properties, and its own microbial composition. MATERIALS AND
methodsOral swabs from 20 adult male participants, including ten long-term Toombak users and ten non-users, were analyzed through microbial inoculation and identification techniques. In addition, Toombak samples were examined for viable microorganisms, tested for antibacterial activity against selected reference strains, and the results were statistically analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (α = 0.05).
resultsThe overall bacterial counts, diversity, and species distribution showed no statistically significant differences between users and non-users, with the exception of Schaalia odontolytica (p = 0.0306) and the proportion of Gram-positive rods (p = 0.0137) expressed as percentages, which were more frequent in the control group. Toombak itself harbored mainly Bacillus spp., and no inhibitory activity against the tested bacteria was observed. While a non-significant trend toward lower bacterial counts was observed in Toombak users (1.83 × 10⁸ vs. 3.31 × 10⁸ CFU/ml), this finding should be interpreted cautiously given the exploratory design and substantial interindividual variability.
conclusionFurther studies using larger cohorts and culture-independent methods are warranted to better clarify its microbial impact.
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.