Kissing as a Protective Factor Against Decreased Salivary pH: Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kissing is a common social behavior that may influence physiological responses and impact oral health. Prior research has shown that affectionate behaviors like kissing can reduce stress and improve relationship satisfaction. However, the effects of kissing on salivary pH, particularly after consuming sugary or fermented beverages, have not been thoroughly investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine whether kissing accelerates salivary pH recovery following the consumption of sugary or fermented beverages. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial will be conducted with 60 couples aged 18-30 years. Participants will be divided into 3 groups: a control group (no kissing), an experimental group where one partner consumes a beverage, and another experimental group where both partners consume a beverage. The study will measure salivary pH at baseline, after beverage consumption, and following a 40-second kiss or control period, with measurements taken every 5 minutes until the pH returns to neutral levels. The data will be analyzed using SPSS software (IBM Corporation). ANOVA will be used to compare salivary pH recovery between groups, and if assumptions of normality or sphericity are not met, alternative models such as generalized linear models or nonparametric tests will be considered. RESULTS: The study is ongoing, with participant recruitment already initiated and preliminary data collection in progress. The study was funded by the Catholic University of Santiago de Guayaquil from June 2024 to June 2025. Ethics approval was obtained in June 2023. The results are expected to be published in the last quarter of 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide insights into the relationship between kissing, salivary pH, and oral health, potentially offering new strategies for the prevention of dental caries. The results may challenge existing assumptions about the role of kissing in oral health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06501729; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06501729. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/65253.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.013 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".