Trial reportOral health & preventive dentistry2026
Efficacy, Buffering Capacity and Dynamics of Saliva-Stimulating Products.
Trial report in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 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
backgroundSaliva maintains the health and integrity of the oral cavity while composing a complex symphony within it. Saliva's lubricating qualities not only make talking and swallowing easier, but also promote digestion by breaking down lipids and carbohydrates through enzymatic processes.
aimTo compare the efficacy, buffering capacity and temporal dynamics of six different saliva-stimulating products in a randomised controlled crossover trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twelve healthy adults were enrolled, each testing six products (chewing gum with mint, Salivin, Jaw Peer medium, Jaw Peer large, Jaw Peer small and control) on separate days. Stimulated saliva secretion rate, buffering capacity, and pH were measured at baseline and at 1, 3 and 6 min following product use. Comparison between products and different time points for the same product was performed using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test. A significance level of p 0.05 was applied for statistical significance.
resultsChewing gum with mint and Jaw Peer large produced the highest stimulated saliva secretion rates. The Jaw Peer product showed the greatest decrease in buffering capacity, while Salivin showed stable buffering capacity over time. Significant temporal variations in buffering capacity were observed for all products. No significant differences were found in unstimulated salivary secretion rate between products.
conclusionsUnstimulated salivary flow rate products exhibit different effects on salivary flow, buffering capacity, and temporal dynamics. Choice of product should be individualised based on patient preferences, specific clinical needs and duration of action, although very limited improvement was noticed with these saliva-stimulating products compared to chewing paraffin alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42905046What 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.