SynthesisClinical oral investigations2026
Oral microbiome alterations in individuals with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically evaluate associations between glycemic control and oral microbial findings in individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), distinguishing targeted detection of selected taxa from comprehensive oral microbiome profiling. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted from database inception to June 2025 in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO. Human studies investigating the relationship between glycemic control and the oral microbiome in individuals with T1DM were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Due to substantial methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesized qualitatively.
resultsForty-two studies met the eligibility criteria. Most were cross-sectional and assessed glycemic control using glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), with heterogeneous thresholds. Saliva and subgingival plaque were the most frequently sampled oral sites. Targeted studies commonly reported associations between poorer glycemic control and selected periodontal pathogens or oral Candida carriage, whereas findings for cariogenic microorganisms were inconsistent. Only four studies used comprehensive culture-independent community profiling; these studies reported differences in community composition and/or diversity, but the small number and methodological heterogeneity preclude a uniform conclusion regarding the direction of diversity change.
conclusionsPoorer glycemic control is associated with selected oral microbial alterations in individuals with T1DM, particularly in periodontal and Candida-focused studies. However, the predominance of targeted assays, cross-sectional designs, and substantial methodological heterogeneity limits conclusions about whole-community oral microbiome dysbiosis or causality. Well-designed longitudinal studies using standardized clinical phenotyping and comprehensive microbiome profiling are needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Poor glycemic control may coexist with adverse oral microbial and clinical findings in individuals with T1DM. These associations support attention to established preventive dental care and periodontal assessment as part of multidisciplinary diabetes care; however, oral microbiome monitoring is not yet validated as a clinical biomarker of glycemic status or oral disease risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42853339What 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.