You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Microorganisms
  • Review
  • Open Access

8 February 2025

The Global Trends and Advances in Oral Microbiome Research on Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Translational and Experimental Clinical Research Centre in Oral Health, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babes”, 300040 Timisoara, Romania
2
Clinic of Preventive, Community Dentistry and Oral Health, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babes”, Eftimie Murgu Sq. no 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
3
Faculty of Dental Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Goethestrasse 70, 80336 Munich, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Oral Microbes and Human Health

Abstract

The oral microbiome is increasingly recognized as a key factor in the development and progression of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Dysbiosis has been associated with inflammation and tumorigenesis, highlighting the potential of microbial alterations and salivary biomarkers as tools for early, non-invasive diagnosis. This review examines recent advancements in understanding the oral microbiome’s role in OSCC. A comprehensive synthesis of studies from 2016 to 2024 was conducted to identify emerging themes and significant findings in the field. Key topics included the interplay between microbiome-driven mechanisms and cancer development, with a focus on microbial communities and their metabolic byproducts. The findings emphasize the importance of specific microbial alterations in modulating immune responses and tumor microenvironments, as well as the promise of biomarkers such as interleukins and miRNA signatures in improving diagnostic accuracy. Recent research trends indicate growing interest in the therapeutic potential of targeting the oral microbiome in OSCC management. Despite significant advancements, gaps remain in the understanding of the precise mechanisms linking dysbiosis to cancer progression. This review underscores the need for continued research to develop personalized diagnostic and therapeutic strategies based on the oral microbiome, with the potential to transform OSCC management.

1. Introduction

The term “microbiome” was coined by Joshua Lederberg, a Nobel Prize laureate, to denote the diverse community of symbiotic, commensal, and pathogenic microorganisms residing within our bodies [1]. These microorganisms collectively inhabit our body space, contributing to an intricate ecological system. Remarkably, the abundance of microbes in our bodies rivals, if not exceeds, that of our own cells [2]. Among these microbiomes, the oral microbiome specifically refers to the array of microorganisms inhabiting the oral cavity of humans.
First recognized in 1674 by Antony van Leeuwenhoek, the oral microbiome has since become a key focus in microbial ecology, with research significantly advancing to reveal its crucial impact on both local and systemic health [3,4].
Recent advancements in salivary metabolomics have highlighted the potential of salivary biomarkers for the early detection and monitoring of various diseases. Salivary metabolites, derived from both oral microbes and host sources, provide valuable insights into physiological and pathological processes [5]. Saliva is a valuable biological fluid containing a diverse array of biomarkers derived from serum, gingival crevicular fluid, and oral microorganisms and their products, making it an attractive option for laboratory tests due to its non-invasive collection, ease of transportation and storage, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency [6,7,8]. Various molecular techniques are employed to detect and determine biomarkers, including DNA microarrays, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, and nuclear magnetic resonance, among others. Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), a prevalent form of oral cancer, is characterized by significant diagnostic challenges due to its asymptomatic nature in early stages and poor 5-year survival rates, which remain unimproved despite advanced combination treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. OSCC development has been closely linked to the oral microbiome, which triggers inflammatory responses through cytokines and chemokines, stimulating tumor cell proliferation and survival, emphasizing the importance of identifying salivary biomarkers for early diagnosis and improved prognosis [9].
Traditional diagnostic methods often fail to detect OSCC until it reaches advanced stages, underscoring the need for non-invasive and reliable biomarkers. Our study investigates the salivary metabolome of OSCC patients, identifying key metabolites that distinguish cancerous from non-cancerous states and exploring their potential as diagnostic and prognostic indicators. Salivary biomarkers have gained significance in the screening and early detection of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), with over 100 potential biomarkers reported in the literature. These biomarkers can be classified based on disease state, biomolecules, or other criteria, with diagnostic markers such as EFNB2 gene expression, interleukins (IL-6 and IL-8), and 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase being of particular interest for OSCC screening and prognosis evaluation. For IL-6, Rani et al. (2023) [10] reported a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 78% (AUC = 0.82), demonstrating its diagnostic utility for OSCC. Similarly, salivary transferrin has shown an AUC of 0.89 in early-stage OSCC detection (Tavakoli et al., 2024 [11]). These findings highlight the potential of these biomarkers for non-invasive diagnostic applications. Recent efforts have focused on non-invasive methods for understanding OSCC genomic architecture, utilizing proteomic, transcriptomic, and metabolomic biomarkers extracted from human saliva samples [12].
Despite ongoing efforts in early screening and diagnosis, the burden of oral cancer treatment is expected to increase significantly due to factors such as its asymptomatic nature in early stages, which often leads to late diagnosis, and the limited improvements in survival rates despite advances in surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy [13,14].
According to the latest data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) on the global burden of disease (GBD), oral cancer poses a significant global health concern, with an estimated 373,000 incident cases, 199,000 deaths, and 5.51 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 alone [15]. Research efforts towards oral cancer have been continuously rising, covering various aspects including diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic modalities, as well as qualitative and health system analyses.
The complex etiology of cancer involves both environmental and heritable risk factors, with increasing evidence suggesting that the microbiome plays a key role in modulating the carcinogenic process through distinct mechanisms. These include microbiome-driven dysbiosis leading to immune evasion, the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and TNF-α that contribute to chronic inflammation, and microbial metabolites influencing oncogenic pathways. While the microbiota harbors beneficial effects including active communication with host cells and maintenance of an environment rich in nutrients, it also poses risks by producing toxins that can induce mutations, alter signaling pathways, and promote cancer development in both oral and systemic contexts [16].
Given the accessibility of the oral cavity for non-invasive biological sampling, salivary-based diagnostic tools are increasingly being explored for their potential in early OSCC detection and personalized risk assessment. Future research should focus on refining these biomarkers to improve sensitivity and specificity, ultimately contributing to precision medicine approaches in oncology [17].
Bibliometric analysis [18] objectively evaluates extensive data from the past to quantify a study’s impact within its specific scientific field. Bibliometric analysis plays a crucial role in assessing, evaluating, and visualizing research trends and evidence within a specific field, thereby enabling future researchers and stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding research priorities [19,20].
A thorough bibliometric analysis should encompass both performance analysis, which quantifies citation and impact counts, and science mapping, which examines the key trends, topics, and collaboration networks among authors, affiliations, and countries involved [21].
Although many studies have explored the link between bacteria and oral cancer, no bibliometric analysis has been conducted on this topic. The oral microbiome’s impact on systemic health is gaining attention, as microbial metabolites influence both local and systemic conditions. Salivary metabolic profiling provides insights into disease mechanisms and potential therapies. By examining the salivary metabolome’s role in OSCC and its systemic implications, our research enhances the understanding of salivary metabolomics and its clinical applications. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis focusing on the literature published in the last eight years. Our analysis encompassed article citations, countries of origin, publishing journals, authors and their affiliations, highly cited studies, and keywords. Additionally, we explored research trends and identified hotspots. The aim of this analysis is to develop a set of salivary biomarkers for the oral microbiome and cytokines, with the aim of evaluating OSCC patients based on variations in these parameters, in the meantime offering researchers an unbiased comprehension of the research landscape in this domain, and to serve as a guide for future in-depth inquiries [12,22,23,24].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources, Collection, and Processing

The methodology employed in the present study’s analysis is derived from the bibliometric handbook on conducting bibliometric analyses by Rehn et al., published in 2014 [25]. The data under analysis were extracted from the Scopus database, a comprehensive and highly regarded platform that indexes a wide array of scholarly literature across multiple disciplines. Known for its extensive coverage, Scopus includes more than 82 million records from over 25,000 peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and patents, encompassing scientific, technical, medical, and social sciences fields. From this reliable source, we gathered data focusing on recent advancements in our understanding of the human microbiome, particularly the oral microbiome and its connections to human health.
The Scopus database was selected due to its extensive multidisciplinary coverage and its capability to perform bibliometric analyses. While other databases, such as PubMed and Web of Science, also provide valuable studies, the decision to use Scopus ensures data consistency and minimizes redundancy in the literature analyzed. This approach aligns with previous bibliometric studies that have also relied on a single database for methodological rigor and analytical depth, such as Zyoud et al. (2022) [26] and Yuan et al. (2021) [27], both of which utilized Scopus to analyze microbiome-related research trends.
This research, focused on studies conducted on oral cancer and the oral microbiome spanning from January 2016 to April 2024, was carried out in April 2024 to mitigate database renewal bias. The Scopus database was selected for its robust collection of medical literature and comprehensive citation analysis capabilities. The search strategy, depicted in Figure 1, incorporated specific terms related to cancer (e.g., carcinoma, tumor) and the oral region (e.g., oral, mouth), along with terms associated with bacteria and the microbiota, while excluding viral, fungal, and mycotic terms. This meticulous approach ensured the inclusion of relevant and high-quality data pertinent to our study.
Figure 1. Flow diagram and search strategy in Scopus.
Several oral and systemic diseases associated with the oral microbiome were identified, including caries, periodontal diseases, and oral cancer, which have garnered significant attention within the scientific community. A combination of search terms, including “oral squamous cell carcinoma”, “oral microbiome”, “dysbiosis”, and “salivary biomarkers”, was employed using appropriate logical operators to yield relevant results. Initially, a sample of 826 publications spanning from 2016 to 2024 was obtained, which was subsequently narrowed down to 82 documents pertinent to dentistry, excluding other fields and publications not in English.
This bibliometric analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines. PRISMA provides a clear set of directives for systematic and meta-analytic reporting, thereby facilitating the evaluation and reproducibility of studies. In this research, we followed the PRISMA-recommended steps, including the formulation of a comprehensive search strategy, rigorous assessment of bias risk, and clear presentation of results via the PRISMA flow diagram. By adhering to these standards, we ensured a robust and transparent methodological approach in exploring changes in the oral microbiome in the context of oral squamous cell carcinoma and identifying relevant salivary biomarkers [28]. This systematic review, conducted retrospectively and focused on bibliometric analysis, adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines to ensure transparency and reproducibility, although it was not pre-registered in a review database (Figure 2) (Supplementary Materials).
Figure 2. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which include searches of databases and registers only. Registers: organized collections of data, such as databases or repositories (e.g., Scopus), used to systematically identify and retrieve studies relevant to the oral microbiome and oral cancer research included in this analysis.

2.2. Risk of Bias

To systematically evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies, we utilized the ROB2 tool (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0). This tool is a widely recognized and validated approach for assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials, focusing on five critical domains: the randomization process, adherence to interventions, completeness of outcome data, measurement of outcomes, and selection of reported results. Each domain was assessed systematically to identify potential sources of bias that could influence the reliability or validity of the study findings. Domain-level evaluations were rated as “Low Risk”, “Some Concerns”, or “High Risk”, with clear criteria guiding each judgment. For example, in the domain of randomization, we assessed whether allocation concealment and sequence generation were appropriately implemented, while for adherence to interventions, we examined deviations from the intended protocol. The assessments were conducted independently by two trained reviewers to minimize subjective interpretation and ensure consistency. In cases of disagreement, discussions were facilitated to achieve consensus, and a third reviewer was consulted to resolve persistent conflicts. This multi-step approach reduced individual bias and strengthened the validity of the evaluation process. To ensure transparency, all judgments were documented with detailed justifications, allowing reproducibility of the evaluation process. Additionally, results were synthesized to provide an overall risk of bias for each study, highlighting areas of methodological strength and weakness. By employing this rigorous and standardized assessment framework, we enhanced the transparency, consistency, and reliability of the included studies’ evaluation, thereby providing a solid foundation for interpreting the findings of this systematic review [29].

2.3. Bibliometric Analysis

For data analysis and visualization, we utilized VOSviewer (version 1.6.20), enabling us to identify and explore research trends and clusters of interest in the field of the oral microbiome and associated diseases.
VOSviewer, a freely available software tool, is utilized to construct and visualize bibliometric networks, offering insights into research clusters, current interests, and emerging trends. Such networks encompass scientific publications or journals, keywords, researchers, countries, research organizations, or other specified inclusion criteria terms. These networks are established through various types of links, including citations, scientific co-authorship, co-occurrence, co-citations, and bibliographic connections. As outlined in the VOSviewer Manual, a link signifies a relation or connection between two items, with each link possessing a strength denoted by different positive numerical values corresponding to the type of analyzed items. For instance, the strength of a link in co-authorship networks could represent the number of documents co-authored by two researchers, while in bibliographic coupling networks, it could indicate the number of cited references shared by two documents [30].
Various analyses, including co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and co-citation, were utilized to explore interactions and relationships among publications, keywords, and authors in the field of study. These methods deepened our understanding of the evolution and research directions in the oral microbiome and related areas. Descriptive bibliometric analysis captured both objective indexes (e.g., number of publications, authors, affiliations, citation counts, and country/region) and subjective indexes (e.g., keywords). Version 1.6.20 of VOSviewer was employed to generate bibliometric network maps for co-authorship by country and for keywords [30]. To assess research trends and impact in the field of the oral microbiome and OSCC, a Spearman’s correlation analysis was conducted between the number of publications per year and their citation metrics. The analysis revealed a statistically significant positive correlation (ρ = 0.85, p < 0.01), indicating a steady increase in research interest and impact. This trend highlights the growing attention toward microbiome-based biomarkers and the integration of artificial intelligence in OSCC diagnostics.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection, Data Extraction, and Risk of Bias

The data collection process was conducted by two independent reviewers. Data collection was performed manually using a predefined data extraction form to ensure consistency and transparency. The collected variables included study characteristics, population demographics, interventions, biomarkers analyzed, outcomes, and information on funding sources. Missing or unclear information was managed by excluding studies with incomplete data.
The statistical analysis further supports the observed research growth. The Spearman’s correlation analysis demonstrated a strong positive correlation (ρ = 0.85, p < 0.01) between publication counts and citation metrics, confirming an increasing trend in research activity. This suggests that microbiome-based OSCC studies have gained substantial academic and clinical relevance, with a significant rise in interest over the past eight years.
Effect measures, such as mean differences and risk ratios, were used to interpret the results depending on the type of biomarker. Studies were synthesized through tabulation and visual representation, and the methodological heterogeneity observed among the included studies was qualitatively assessed. This heterogeneity was primarily attributed to differences in study designs and biomarker measurement techniques. Reporting bias was not formally evaluated; however, studies excluded due to incomplete data were documented to ensure transparency in the selection process.
The certainty of the evidence was not assessed using formal frameworks, such as GRADE. Nevertheless, the methodological limitations of the included studies were discussed to adjust the overall confidence in the findings. These limitations, including the prevalence of high-risk domains, were considered in the interpretation of results and conclusions.
Both reviewers systematically extracted relevant information from the included studies, using the predefined data extraction form. Any discrepancies or disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through mutual discussion to ensure consistency and accuracy in the collected data. No third-party arbitration was required as all disagreements were resolved collaboratively. No automation tools were used in the data collection process, and all steps were conducted manually to ensure accuracy and consistency.
Figure 3 presents the distribution of the risk of bias across the included studies. The most common sources of bias were identified in the domains of “Bias due to missing outcome data” and “Bias in selection of the reported result”, where a significant number of studies were classified as high-risk (red). These findings highlight potential limitations in data completeness and reporting practices, which could impact the overall reliability and validity of the conclusions drawn from these studies. Conversely, the majority of studies demonstrated a low risk of bias (green) in the domains of “Bias arising from the randomization process” and “Bias in measurement of the outcome”, reflecting adequate methodologies in these areas.
Figure 3. Risk of bias assessment for included studies using the ROB2 tool.

3.2. Keyword Analysis of Research Themes in Oral Microbiome and Oral Cancer

Between 2016 and 2024, a total of 82 articles on the topic of the oral microbiome, salivary biomarkers, and oral cancer met the search criteria and were included in the evaluation.
These results underscore the need for improved reporting and data management practices in future research. Addressing issues related to missing data and selective reporting could significantly enhance the overall quality of evidence in this field. Moreover, by systematically identifying and visualizing these risks, this assessment provides a foundation for prioritizing methodological improvements in future studies.
A keyword analysis was conducted using VOSviewer (Center for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands) to discern the predominant research themes in the literature concerning the role of the microbiome in oral cancer development. This method highlights the most relevant keywords based on their frequency, indicated by the number of articles in which a keyword appears at least six times. This means that out of 2408 terms, only 82 meet the threshold, and we chose just the 60% most relevant of them. For our dataset, we chose to generate a map of the network of keywords with a minimum of six occurrences in the analyzed articles, such as oral microbiome (nine occurrences), OSCC (seventy-four occurrences), salivary biomarkers (sixteen occurrences), and early detection (eleven occurrences), in VOSviewer. The most important keywords and the links between them are presented in Figure 4. A larger node (keyword) indicates a greater weight (a higher number of occurrences); a smaller distance between nodes indicates a stronger relationship between them; the same color indicates a series of related keywords or a group of related keywords. Additionally, Table 1 provides a detailed description of these keyword groups, highlighting their occurrences and total link strength within the analyzed dataset.
Figure 4. Map of the network of keywords. Source: own processing through VOSviewer.
Table 1. Keyword groups. Source: own processing through VOSviewer (Occ., occurrences; T.L.S., total link strength).

3.3. Analysis of “Co-Authorship” in Terms of Number of Citations

Research interest in the topic of metabolic pathways can be identified by the number of authors addressing this subject, more concretely through the co-authorship relationships established during scientific research. The analysis in this section focuses on identifying the strongest co-authorship relationships on the analyzed topic, thereby visualizing the most relevant author groups. Out of a total of 553 authors identified in the analyzed articles, 77 of these are cited at least 50 times. Additionally, two authors have met the threshold of at least 50 citations per published document, while four authors have met the threshold of 556 citations per published document. However, their level of collaboration differs, which is why a graphical representation of all 553 authors is not relevant. Individual researchers who do not form clusters with multiple authors are specifically mentioned, while 77 authors have managed to form research teams with significant importance for the analyzed topic. Figure 5 distinguishes the clusters composed of authors collaborating on this topic. Furthermore, the analysis has concentrated on the research domain of the main authors’ network, specifically targeting the primary objective: alterations in the oral microbiome associated with oral and systemic pathology. From the total, 82 articles were selected based on their relevance and citation thresholds to ensure a focused and detailed examination of the collaborative research efforts in this field.
Figure 5. Network of scientific co-authorship, based on the number of documents per author. Source: own processing through VOSviewer.
Table 2 organizes the primary authors based on color-coded groups, highlighting the number of citations per document and the total link strength (TLS) for each group. Each cell under the “Main Authors” column lists the authors associated with the respective color group, reflecting their collaborative network and research impact within the domain of oral microbiome alterations related to oral and systemic pathologies. The “Citations/Document” column indicates the minimum citations each author has received per published document, while the “TLS” column shows the cumulative strength of their collaborative links, illustrating the intensity and number of collaborations among these researchers.
Table 2. Organization of primary authors by color-coded groups: citations per document and total link strength (TLS). Source: own processing through VOSviewer (T.L.S., total link strength).

3.4. Analysis of International Co-Authorship Networks in Scientific Research

To better understand the dynamics of international research collaborations, this bibliometric map provides a detailed visualization of co-authorship networks based on data obtained from Scopus.
This bibliometric map was generated using VOSviewer software and is based on bibliographic data. The analysis was conducted using the “co-authorship” type and the “full counting” method. The parameters of the analysis included a maximum of 25 countries per document, a minimum of one document per country, and a minimum of 50 citations per country. Of the 36 countries that met the citation threshold, 21 were interconnected, resulting in this map.
Figure 6 illustrates the collaboration networks between various countries in scientific publications indexed in Scopus. The United States is shown as a central node with numerous connections to other countries, highlighting its significant role in the global co-authorship network. Other notable countries, such as the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia, also show multiple international connections. In contrast, India and China, although very active, are depicted with fewer direct connections to other countries, reflecting more limited international collaboration.
Figure 6. Bibliometric map of international research collaborations.

3.5. Visualizing Collaborative Networks in Dental Research: A Co-Authorship Bibliometric Analysis of Key Organizations

This bibliometric map, created using VOSviewer, visualizes the co-authorship networks among various organizations that have published articles in the field of dentistry, based on data from Scopus. The analysis used the full counting method with a maximum of 25 organizations per document and set thresholds of at least one document and 100 citations per organization. Out of twelve organizations meeting these criteria, nine were interconnected. Key organizations include the School of Dentistry and Oral Health at Griffith University, the Preventive Oral Health Unit at The National Dental Hospital, the School of Medical Science at Griffith University, the Dental Institute at King’s College London, and the Maurice H. Kornberg School of Dentistry at Temple University. The nodes represent organizations, while the links between them indicate the frequency and intensity of their collaborative efforts, highlighting the influential research networks in the field of dental science (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Bibliometric map of collaborations between organizations.

3.6. Exploring Co-Occurrence Relationships: Insights from Oral Microbiome Research

In this study, we conducted a detailed analysis of the relationships between key terms in the literature concerning the oral microbiome and associated diseases, using VOSviewer software. For mapping purposes, we utilized bibliographic data downloaded from Scopus and applied various analytical techniques, including co-occurrences, author keywords, and full counting.
After applying a minimum threshold of four co-occurrences, we identified 17 keywords that met this criterion. Among these, “OSCC” and “saliva” were the most frequently encountered, with 38 occurrences. “Biomarkers” were mentioned ten times, while “or cancer” was mentioned twelve times, and the “oral microbiome” was mentioned five times.
These statistics provide a clear picture of researchers’ concerns and interests in the field, highlighting the significance of the oral microbiome in the context of oral and systemic diseases. The resulting map enables us to visualize the networks of co-occurrences among these key terms, providing a comprehensive perspective on the interactions within the literature. A detailed analysis of these relationships can contribute to a deeper understanding of the complexity of the oral microbiome and its impact on human health (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Co-occurrence network analysis of key terms in oral microbiome research.

4. Discussion

Recent insights into the human microbiome have shed light on the intricate role this microbial community plays in our health, especially focusing on the oral microbiome. This deeper understanding has unveiled a wide array of diseases linked to the oral microbiome, encompassing both oral and systemic conditions such as caries, periodontal diseases, oral cancer, colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and irritable bowel syndrome. Moreover, advancements in our comprehension of the human microbiome, with a particular emphasis on the oral microbiome, have highlighted its vital impact on health and disease. This study utilized bibliometric methods to thoroughly review the literature concerning the oral microbiome’s role in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). The findings showed a notable rise in publications and citations, reflecting the growing interest and acknowledgment of the oral microbiome’s importance in OSCC [17].
The initial focus of oral cancer research primarily centered around epidemiology and the characteristics of oral cancer, likely as part of a population health strategy to identify high-prevalence groups and implement preventive measures. However, there has been a noticeable shift towards investigating cellular/molecular pathways, the tumor microenvironment, the microbiome, therapeutic targets, and biomarkers. These research areas have the potential to empower clinicians to intervene in the pathology at an earlier stage and develop treatment strategies based on specific therapeutic targets, facilitating more precise and minimally invasive treatment approaches. The publication landscape reflects a global interest in oral cancer, with prominent affiliations and countries frequently collaborating on similar research endeavors.
This study offers a thorough assessment of academic publications examining the link between oral cancer and bacteria from 2016 to 2024. The analysis highlights a steady rise in publication numbers over time, indicating a growing interest in this research domain. Furthermore, the citations garnered by these articles exhibit a positive trend, emphasizing their impact and importance in the scientific community. This mirrors the increasing global severity of oral cancer [31] and the pressing necessity to comprehend the role of bacteria in its development [32].
A total of 82 relevant articles on the oral microbiome and oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) from 2016 to 2024 were included, with an average annual publication count of 10.25. The field has shown a steady increase in research interest, reflecting the growing recognition of the oral microbiome’s role in oral cancer. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in 2020, there was a noticeable stagnation in publication growth, likely due to research disruptions and the reallocation of resources to pandemic-related studies. Despite the pandemic’s impact, the publication count resumed its growth post 2020, underscoring the field’s resilience and the sustained interest in exploring the oral microbiome’s implications in cancer research. Notably, the 2022 publication count did not reach expected levels, attributed to ongoing pandemic-related challenges and potential publication delays (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Article appearances across years.
Several key studies have contributed to the understanding of the oral microbiome’s role in OSCC. Among the authors investigated, Ahmed et al. in 2024 demonstrated in their study that saliva DNA is a viable medium for detecting somatic mutations in patients with OSCC, with a detection rate of 82% regardless of the tumor stage or primary site, though sensitivity may be limited by low variant allele frequencies (VAFs); while traditional methods such as droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) offer high sensitivity, advancements in panel sequencing and bioinformatics, such as the Integrated Variant Analysis (INVAR) pipeline, may enhance detection capabilities, suggesting a promising avenue for the non-invasive monitoring of OSCC recurrence and treatment response [33]. Rapado-González’s study demonstrates that advanced DNA extraction and analysis techniques, including the use of specialized kits for Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded (FFPE) tissues and saliva samples, enable the precise identification of genome-wide DNA methylation changes. The methodologies employed, such as bisulfite conversion and methylation panel sequencing, along with sophisticated bioinformatic tools, facilitate detailed DNA methylation profiling, ensuring rigorous quality control and data normalization. These techniques revealed significant differences in DNA methylation and gene expression between OSCC samples and healthy controls, highlighting their potential for disease diagnosis and monitoring [34]. At the same time, Scheurer et al. show the potential of specific miRNA signatures from saliva to distinguish between healthy individuals and OSCC patients, suggesting that standardized protocols for miRNA analysis could be developed to facilitate the early detection of malignant changes, although further validation in larger and more homogeneous studies is necessary to confirm these findings [35]. Zhu et al. indicate that Capnocytophaga gingivalis, highly abundant in OSCC tissues, plays a crucial role in promoting OSCC invasion and metastasis by inducing the epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT), suggesting a novel direction for OSCC research focused on the microbial influence on cancer progression [36]. Riccardi et al. in their recent study highlight the potential of salivary transferrin as a biomarker for the early diagnosis of OSCC, emphasizing its role in iron transport and cell proliferation processes; despite promising results indicating suitable sensitivity and specificity, further research is needed to validate these findings and improve early detection strategies for better prognosis in OSCC patients [37,38].
The microbiome profile of OSF-related malignancy showed increased microbial stochastic fluctuation and species co-occurrence network collapse. Artificial intelligence algorithms identified five key species in the OSCC-OSF group, Porphyromonas catoniae, Prevotella multisaccharivorax, Prevotella sp. HMT-300, Mitsuokella sp. HMT-131, and Treponema sp. HMT-927, with robust accuracy in predicting oral carcinogenesis. Functional analysis indicated differences in microbial metabolite potential, suggesting roles in modulating metabolites during oral carcinogenesis. Overall, these findings provide new insights into salivary microbiome alterations during the malignant transformation of OSF [39].
Our analysis unveiled an expanding interest in the oral microbiome within oral cancer research. Studies indicate that dysbiosis in the oral and periodontal microbiome may heighten the risk of oral cancer [40,41].
At the same time, Scheurer et al. highlight in their study the significant role of specific microbial species in oral carcinogenesis, particularly in the transition from normal oral mucosa to OSCC. The genus Gemella, along with species such as Streptococcus, S. agalactiae, and G. haemolysans, were found to be enriched in OSCC samples. These findings suggest that these microbial species may be involved in the metabolic processes associated with cancer development. The study also notes that metabolic pathways, including those related to cysteine and methionine metabolism, are significantly altered in OSCC, pointing to the potential involvement of these microbes in creating a pro-carcinogenic environment. Further research with larger, diverse populations is necessary to confirm these associations and explore their potential as early diagnostic biomarkers for oral cancer [9].
Rani et al. demonstrate the potential of salivary IL-6 as a diagnostic biomarker for oral cancer, particularly OSCC, OPMDs, and CP. Elevated levels of salivary IL-6 were consistently observed in OSCC and moderately in OPMDs, indicating its potential as a reliable indicator of oral malignancy. These findings align with previous research highlighting the diagnostic role of IL-6 in oral cancer, reinforcing its significance as a non-invasive diagnostic tool. Moreover, our study underscores the importance of salivary IL-6 in differentiating between healthy individuals and those with oral lesions, emphasizing its utility in early detection and disease monitoring. While further research is warranted to validate these findings across diverse populations and refine diagnostic criteria, the evidence presented by Rani et al. supports the promising role of salivary IL-6 as a valuable biomarker for oral cancer detection and management [10].
Hashimoto et al.’s study demonstrated significant differences in microbiome profiles in saliva, with an increase in Fusobacteria and Fusobacterium and a decrease in Firmicutes and Streptococcus observed in the OSCC group compared to non-OSCC groups. These findings suggest the potential of these bacterial taxa as novel biomarkers for OSCC detection. Additionally, our analysis of patients with early recurrence suggests the prognostic value of the oral microbiome. Although this study could not elucidate the precise mechanisms by which these bacterial biomarkers influence carcinogenesis and tumor progression, they hold promise for identifying high-risk cases of oral leukoplakia or recurrence in postoperative OSCC patients. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate the clinical utility of oral microbiome profiling in oral diseases [42].
Recent advancements, such as AI-driven models for microbiome analysis, have demonstrated their ability to predict OSCC with high accuracy. For example, Chen et al. (2023) utilized machine learning algorithms to identify microbial patterns associated with early-stage OSCC, achieving a diagnostic accuracy of 92% [43].
By employing keyword analysis with VOSviewer, we identified four main research themes in oral cancer and the microbiome. The first theme emphasized the importance of sensitivity and specificity, focusing on reliable biomarkers like IL-6 and miRNA for the early detection of oral cancer. The second theme explored the interplay between periodontitis, the oral microbiome, and cancer, highlighting how dysbiosis may increase oral cancer risk. The third theme concentrated on malignant disorders and inflammation, examining specific bacteria’s roles in carcinogenesis and chronic inflammation. The final theme addressed evaluation and prognosis, analyzing risk factors and potential markers to develop preventive and diagnostic strategies, ultimately aiming for early intervention and better patient outcomes.
Salivary biomarkers have gained increasing attention for OSCC screening due to their non-invasive nature and potential diagnostic accuracy. For example, Fusobacterium nucleatum, associated with OSCC, can be incorporated into diagnostic panels through targeted qPCR assays, enabling the early detection and monitoring of tumor progression. Similarly, Capnocytophaga gingivalis has shown potential as a microbial marker for distinguishing cancerous from non-cancerous states. These practical applications bridge the gap between theoretical findings and their implementation in clinical diagnostics.
The co-authorship and co-occurrence analyses highlighted significant international and interdisciplinary collaborations. The United States emerged as a central node with numerous connections to other countries, indicating its leading role in global research. Countries like the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia also showed multiple international collaborations. However, countries such as India and China, despite high research activity, exhibited fewer direct international connections, suggesting a need for enhanced global collaboration.
This study employs bibliometric methods to investigate the progression of research concerning the importance of the oral microbiome and salivary biomarkers in the progression of oral cancer, yielding a comprehensive understanding of various research facets. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize and address several limitations in our approach. Firstly, we relied solely on the Scopus database, potentially overlooking relevant articles from other sources. Future studies should consider incorporating multiple databases to ensure broader coverage. Secondly, our focus on original articles might have excluded highly cited review articles, which offer valuable summaries of the literature. Incorporating review articles in future studies could provide a more inclusive overview. Lastly, while citation analysis was utilized, additional quality assessments could enhance the identification of high-quality articles. Despite these limitations, our study furnishes valuable insights into the evolution of research on bacterial influence on oral cancer. Acknowledging these constraints, future studies can build on our findings and employ more robust methodologies. This study contributes to advancing scientific understanding in the field of oral cancer and underscores the imperative for continued research.
This review summarizes findings from multiple studies investigating oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and related biomarkers, focusing on diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic advancements. The studies analyzed in this review demonstrate significant progress in the identification of salivary and serum biomarkers, genetic factors, and microbial changes associated with OSCC. Techniques such as metagenomic sequencing, ELISA, qPCR, and mass spectrometry have been employed to reveal differential biomarker expressions, including microRNAs, cfDNA, cytokines, and metabolites. Statistical analyses like ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis tests, and ROC curve analysis consistently highlight their diagnostic potential, with several biomarkers achieving high sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, research into the oral microbiome suggests significant microbial diversity alterations in OSCC patients compared to healthy controls. Collectively, these findings emphasize the critical role of molecular and microbial biomarkers in improving early detection, risk stratification, and therapeutic interventions for OSCC (Table 3).
Table 3. Key biomarkers and diagnostic advancements in oral squamous cell carcinoma: a review of current evidence.

5. Conclusions

The bibliometric analysis of the oral microbiome and its association with oral cancer reveals significant growth in research within this field. Our study underscores the increasing recognition of the oral microbiome’s role in the etiology, diagnosis, and prognosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Notable findings include the identification of numerous salivary biomarkers, such as IL-6, specific miRNA signatures, and microbial profiles, which show promise for the early detection and monitoring of OSCC.
Our analysis highlights key research themes, such as the sensitivity and specificity of biomarkers, the interplay between periodontitis, the oral microbiome, and oral cancer, and the role of specific bacteria in oral carcinogenesis. The importance of international and interdisciplinary collaborations is emphasized by significant co-authorship networks, reflecting strong global interest and cooperation in this research area.
This study advances the scientific understanding of the oral microbiome’s role in oral cancer and emphasizes the necessity of continued research. Future studies can refine the diagnostic criteria and early detection methods, ultimately improving patient outcomes in OSCC.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms13020373/s1. PRISMA 2020 Main Checklist: This document contains the PRISMA 2020 Main Checklist, detailing the methodology used in this systematic review. Relevant sections of this checklist have been incorporated as images within the manuscript for clarity; PRISMA 2020 Abstract Checklist: This document provides the PRISMA 2020 Abstract Checklist, summarizing essential aspects of the systematic review process. Content from this checklist has also been included as images within the manuscript for reference. Reference [116] is cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.D. and A.G.; methodology, V.B. and A.G.; software, V.B.; validation, O.B. and R.S.-R.; formal analysis, A.D.F. and V.T.A.; investigation, O.B., B.L.R.B., and V.T.A.; resources, D.J.; data curation, V.B. and A.D.F.; writing—original draft preparation, R.D. and O.B.; writing—review and editing, R.S.-R., V.B., and A.G.; visualization, A.G.; supervision, D.J.; project administration, O.B. and A.G.; funding acquisition, D.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We would like to acknowledge Victor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timișoara for their support in covering the costs of publication for this research paper (Grant Number 4814/2 October 2023). This research is part of a project underway at the “Translational and Experimental Clinical Research Centre in Oral Health, Department of Preventive, Community Dentistry, and Oral Health, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babes”, Timisoara”, which aims to study the risk factors in oral health and their relationship with quality of life.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babes”, Timisoara, Romania (No. 05/30 January 2024).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Victor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timișoara for their support in covering the costs of publication for this research paper. The authors are really grateful to the staff of the Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babes”, Timisoara, Romania. The authors used ChatGPT, an AI language model developed by OpenAI, exclusively to improve this manuscript’s language and readability. All the scientific content, interpretations, and conclusions are the original work of the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Deo, P.; Deshmukh, R. Oral Microbiome: Unveiling the Fundamentals. J. Oral Maxillofac. Pathol. 2019, 23, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Scotti, E.; Boué, S.; Sasso, G.L.; Zanetti, F.; Belcastro, V.; Poussin, C.; Sierro, N.; Battey, J.; Gimalac, A.; Ivanov, N.V.; et al. Exploring the Microbiome in Health and Disease: Implications for Toxicology. Toxicol. Res. Appl. 2017, 1, 239784731774188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gao, L.; Xu, T.; Huang, G.; Jiang, S.; Gu, Y.; Chen, F. Oral Microbiomes: More and More Importance in Oral Cavity and Whole Body. Protein Cell 2018, 9, 488–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cross, B.; Faustoferri, R.C.; Quivey, R.G. What Are We Learning and What Can We Learn from the Human Oral Microbiome Project? Curr. Oral Health Rep. 2016, 3, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, W.; Luo, J.; Dong, X.; Zhao, S.; Hao, Y.; Peng, C.; Shi, H.; Zhou, Y.; Shan, L.; Sun, Q.; et al. Salivary Microbial Dysbiosis Is Associated with Systemic Inflammatory Markers and Predicted Oral Metabolites in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients. J. Cancer 2019, 10, 1651–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Song, M.; Bai, H.; Zhang, P.; Zhou, X.; Ying, B. Promising Applications of Human-Derived Saliva Biomarker Testing in Clinical Diagnostics. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2023, 15, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Zhang, C.-Z.; Cheng, X.-Q.; Li, J.-Y.; Zhang, P.; Yi, P.; Xu, X.; Zhou, X.-D. Saliva in the Diagnosis of Diseases. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2016, 8, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Schwarz, C.; Balean, O.; Dumitrescu, R.; Ciordas, P.D.; Marian, C.; Georgescu, M.; Bolchis, V.; Sava-Rosianu, R.; Fratila, A.D.; Alexa, I.; et al. Total Antioxidant Capacity of Saliva and Its Correlation with pH Levels among Dental Students under Different Stressful Conditions. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 3648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lan, Q.; Zhang, C.; Hua, H.; Hu, X. Compositional and Functional Changes in the Salivary Microbiota Related to Oral Leukoplakia and Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Case Control Study. BMC Oral Health 2023, 23, 1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rani, N.A.J.; Vardhan, B.G.H.; Srinivasan, S.; Gopal, S.K. Evaluation of Salivary Interleukin-6 in Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders, Chronic Periodontitis and in Healthy Controls—A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg. 2023, 13, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Tavakoli, F.; Ghavimi, M.A.; Fakhrzadeh, V.; Abdolzadeh, D.; Afshari, A.; Eslami, H. Evaluation of Salivary Transferrin in Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2024, 10, e809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Radhika, T.; Jeddy, N.; Nithya, S.; Muthumeenakshi, R.M. Salivary Biomarkers in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma—An Insight. J. Oral Biol. Craniofacial Res. 2016, 6, S51–S54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shield, K.D.; Ferlay, J.; Jemal, A.; Sankaranarayanan, R.; Chaturvedi, A.K.; Bray, F.; Soerjomataram, I. The Global Incidence of Lip, Oral Cavity, and Pharyngeal Cancers by Subsite in 2012. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 2017, 67, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Du, M.; Nair, R.; Jamieson, L.; Liu, Z.; Bi, P. Incidence Trends of Lip, Oral Cavity, and Pharyngeal Cancers: Global Burden of Disease 1990–2017. J. Dent. Res. 2020, 99, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ren, Z.; Hu, C.; He, H.; Li, Y.; Lyu, J. Global and Regional Burdens of Oral Cancer from 1990 to 2017: Results from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Cancer Commun. 2020, 40, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yuanbo, Z.; Tianyi, L.; Xuejing, S.; Xinpeng, L.; Jianqun, W.; Wenxia, X.; Jingshu, G. Using Formalin Fixed Paraffin Embedded Tissue to Characterize the Microbiota in P16-Positive and P16-Negative Tongue Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Pilot Study. BMC Oral Health 2024, 24, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Xiao, J.; Fiscella, K.A.; Gill, S.R. Oral Microbiome: Possible Harbinger for Children’s Health. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2020, 12, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Liu, W.; Wu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, L.; Yang, X. Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends and Characteristics of Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders. Clin. Oral Investig. 2020, 24, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hassona, Y.; Qutachi, T. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Most Cited Articles about Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Mouth, Lips, and Oropharynx. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2019, 128, 25–32.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Pena-Cristóbal, M.; Diniz-Freitas, M.; Monteiro, L.; Diz Dios, P.; Warnakulasuriya, S. The 100 Most Cited Articles on Oral Cancer. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2018, 47, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cooper, I.D. Bibliometrics Basics. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2015, 103, 217–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rai, A.K.; Panda, M.; Das, A.K.; Rahman, T.; Das, R.; Das, K.; Sarma, A.; Kataki, A.C.; Chattopadhyay, I. Dysbiosis of Salivary Microbiome and Cytokines Influence Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma through Inflammation. Arch. Microbiol. 2021, 203, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bugshan, A.; Farooq, I. Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Metastasis, Potentially Associated Malignant Disorders, Etiology and Recent Advancements in Diagnosis. F1000Research 2020, 9, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. González-Moles, M.Á.; Warnakulasuriya, S.; González-Ruiz, I.; González-Ruiz, L.; Ayén, Á.; Lenouvel, D.; Ruiz-Ávila, I.; Ramos-García, P. Worldwide Prevalence of Oral Lichen Planus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Oral Dis. 2021, 27, 813–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bibliometrics & Verification|Karolinska Institutet University Library. Available online: https://kib.ki.se/en/publish-analyse/bibliometrics-verification (accessed on 26 May 2024).
  26. Zyoud, S.H.; Al-Jabi, S.W.; Amer, R.; Shakhshir, M.; Shahwan, M.; Jairoun, A.A.; Akkawi, M.; Abu Taha, A. Global Research Trends on the Links between the Gut Microbiome and Cancer: A Visualization Analysis. J. Transl. Med. 2022, 20, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yuan, X.; Chang, C.; Chen, X.; Li, K. Emerging Trends and Focus of Human Gastrointestinal Microbiome Research from 2010–2021: A Visualized Study. J. Transl. Med. 2021, 19, 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Haddaway, N.R.; Page, M.J.; Pritchard, C.C.; McGuinness, L.A. PRISMA2020: An R Package and Shiny App for Producing PRISMA 2020-compliant Flow Diagrams, with Interactivity for Optimised Digital Transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2022, 18, e1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. McGuinness, L.A.; Higgins, J.P.T. Risk-of-bias VISualization (Robvis): An R Package and Shiny Web App for Visualizing Risk-of-bias Assessments. Res. Synth. Methods 2021, 12, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Citation-Based Clustering of Publications Using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 2017, 111, 1053–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gupta, N.; Gupta, R.; Acharya, A.K.; Patthi, B.; Goud, V.; Reddy, S.; Garg, A.; Singla, A. Changing Trends in Oral Cancer—A Global Scenario. Nepal J. Epidemiol. 2017, 6, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Minarovits, J. Anaerobic Bacterial Communities Associated with Oral Carcinoma: Intratumoral, Surface-Biofilm and Salivary Microbiota. Anaerobe 2021, 68, 102300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ahmed, A.A.; Sborchia, M.; Bye, H.; Roman-Escorza, M.; Amar, A.; Henley-Smith, R.; Odell, E.; McGurk, M.; Simpson, M.; Ng, T.; et al. Mutation Detection in Saliva from Oral Cancer Patients. Oral Oncol. 2024, 151, 106717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rapado-González, Ó.; Costa-Fraga, N.; Bao-Caamano, A.; López-Cedrún, J.L.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, R.; Crujeiras, A.B.; Muinelo-Romay, L.; López-López, R.; Díaz-Lagares, Á.; Suárez-Cunqueiro, M.M. Genome-Wide DNA Methylation Profiling in Tongue Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Oral Dis. 2024, 30, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Scheurer, M.J.J.; Wagner, A.; Sakkas, A.; Pietzka, S.; Derka, S.; Vairaktari, G.; Wilde, F.; Schramm, A.; Bauer, A.; Siebert, R.; et al. Influence of Analytical Procedures on miRNA Expression Analyses in Saliva Samples. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2024, 52, 748–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhu, W.; Shen, W.; Wang, J.; Xu, Y.; Zhai, R.; Zhang, J.; Wang, M.; Wang, M.; Liu, L. Capnocytophaga Gingivalis Is a Potential Tumor Promotor in Oral Cancer. Oral Dis. 2024, 30, 353–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Riccardi, G.; Bellizzi, M.G.; Fatuzzo, I.; Zoccali, F.; Cavalcanti, L.; Greco, A.; Vincentiis, M.D.; Ralli, M.; Fiore, M.; Petrella, C.; et al. Salivary Biomarkers in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Proteomic Overview. Proteomes 2022, 10, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Farhadian, S.; Hashemi-Shahraki, F.; Amirifar, S.; Asadpour, S.; Shareghi, B.; Heidari, E.; Shakerian, B.; Rafatifard, M.; Firooz, A.R. Malachite Green, the Hazardous Materials That Can Bind to Apo-Transferrin and Change the Iron Transfer. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 194, 790–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chen, M.Y.; Chen, J.W.; Wu, L.W.; Huang, K.C.; Chen, J.Y.; Wu, W.S.; Chiang, W.F.; Shih, C.J.; Tsai, K.N.; Hsieh, W.T.; et al. Carcinogenesis of Male Oral Submucous Fibrosis Alters Salivary Microbiomes. J. Dent. Res. 2021, 100, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Herreros-Pomares, A.; Hervás, D.; Bagan-Debón, L.; Jantus-Lewintre, E.; Gimeno-Cardona, C.; Bagan, J. On the Oral Microbiome of Oral Potentially Malignant and Malignant Disorders: Dysbiosis, Loss of Diversity, and Pathogens Enrichment. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 3466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ganly, I.; Yang, L.; Giese, R.A.; Hao, Y.; Nossa, C.W.; Morris, L.G.T.; Rosenthal, M.; Migliacci, J.; Kelly, D.; Tseng, W.; et al. Periodontal Pathogens Are a Risk Factor of Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Independent of Tobacco and Alcohol and Human Papillomavirus. Int. J. Cancer 2019, 145, 775–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hashimoto, K.; Shimizu, D.; Ueda, S.; Miyabe, S.; Oh-Iwa, I.; Nagao, T.; Shimozato, K.; Nomoto, S. Feasibility of Oral Microbiome Profiles Associated with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Oral Microbiol. 2022, 14, 2105574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Chen, J.; Wang, L.; Ma, D.; Zhang, H.; Fan, J.; Gao, H.; Xia, X.; Wu, W.; Shi, Y. miR-19a May Function as a Biomarker of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OSCC) by Regulating the Signaling Pathway of miR-19a/GRK6/GPCRs/PKC in a Chinese Population. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2023, 52, 971–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Daniel, D.; Jose, J.; Harish Kumar, A. Is Salivary Sialic Acid a Reliable Biomarker in the Detection of Oral Potentially Malignant Disorder and Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 2021, 20, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yap, T.; Seers, C.; Koo, K.; Cheng, L.; Vella, L.J.; Hill, A.F.; Reynolds, E.; Nastri, A.; Cirillo, N.; McCullough, M. Non-Invasive Screening of a microRNA-Based Dysregulation Signature in Oral Cancer and Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders. Oral Oncol. 2019, 96, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Zheng, J.; Sun, L.; Yuan, W.; Xu, J.; Yu, X.; Wang, F.; Sun, L.; Zeng, Y. Clinical Value of Naa10p and CEA Levels in Saliva and Serum for Diagnosis of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2018, 47, 830–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Hes, C.; Desilets, A.; Tonneau, M.; El Ouarzadi, O.; De Figueiredo Sousa, M.; Bahig, H.; Filion, É.; Nguyen-Tan, P.F.; Christopoulos, A.; Benlaïfaoui, M.; et al. Gut Microbiome Predicts Gastrointestinal Toxicity Outcomes from Chemoradiation Therapy in Patients with Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2024, 148, 106623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mehdipour, M.; Shahidi, M.; Anbari, F.; Mirzaei, H.; Jafari, S.; Kholghi, A.; Lotfi, E.; Manifar, S.; Mashhadiabbas, F. Salivary Level of microRNA-146a and microRNA-155 Biomarkers in Patients with Oral Lichen Planus versus Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. BMC Oral Health 2023, 23, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Rapado-González, Ó.; López-Cedrún, J.L.; Lago-Lestón, R.M.; Abalo, A.; Rubin-Roger, G.; Salgado-Barreira, Á.; López-López, R.; Muinelo-Romay, L.; Suárez-Cunqueiro, M.M. Integrity and Quantity of Salivary Cell-Free DNA as a Potential Molecular Biomarker in Oral Cancer: A Preliminary Study. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2022, 51, 429–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Menaka, T.R.; Vasupradha, G.; Ravikumar, S.S.; Dhivya, K.; Dinakaran, J.; Saranya, V. Evaluation of Salivary Alkaline Phosphatase Levels in Tobacco Users to Determine Its Role as a Biomarker in Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders. J. Oral Maxillofac. Pathol. 2019, 23, 344–348. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sridharan, G.; Ramani, P.; Patankar, S.; Vijayaraghavan, R. Evaluation of Salivary Metabolomics in Oral Leukoplakia and Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2019, 48, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Bandara, H.M.H.N.; Panduwawala, C.P.; Samaranayake, L.P. Biodiversity of the Human Oral Mycobiome in Health and Disease. Oral Dis. 2019, 25, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Palaia, G.; Pippi, R.; Rocchetti, F.; Caputo, M.; Macali, F.; Mohsen, A.; Vecchio, A.D.; Tenore, G.; Romeo, U. Liquid Biopsy in the Assessment of microRNAs in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2022, 14, 875–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Afifi, S.; Zahran, F.; Shaker, O.; Tarrad, N.; Elsaadany, B. Sensitivity and Specificity of Serum and Salivary Cyfra21-1 in Detecting Malignant Changes in Oral Potentially Malignant Lesions (Diagnostic Accuracy Study). World J. Dent. 2021, 12, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Garg, R.; Shetti, A.V.; Bagewadi, A.S. Assessment and Comparison of Salivary Survivin Biomarker in Oral Leukoplakia, Oral Lichen Planus, and Oral Cancer: A Comparative Study. World J. Dent. 2017, 8, 73–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Perera, M.; Al-hebshi, N.N.; Perera, I.; Ipe, D.; Ulett, G.C.; Speicher, D.J.; Chen, T.; Johnson, N.W. Inflammatory Bacteriome and Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Dent. Res. 2018, 97, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Farshbaf, A.; Mohajertehran, F.; Aghaee-Bakhtiari, S.H.; Ayatollahi, H.; Douzandeh, K.; Pakfetrat, A.; Mohtasham, N. Downregulation of Salivary miR-3928 as a Potential Biomarker in Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Oral Lichen Planus. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2024, 10, e877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nosratzehi, T.; Risbaf Fakour, S.; Alijani, E.; Salehi, M. Investigating the Level of Salivary Endothelin-1 in Premalignant and Malignant Lesions. Spec. Care Dentist. 2017, 37, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Vesty, A.; Gear, K.; Biswas, K.; Radcliff, F.J.; Taylor, M.W.; Douglas, R.G. Microbial and Inflammatory-Based Salivary Biomarkers of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2018, 4, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Blatt, S.; Krüger, M.; Ziebart, T.; Sagheb, K.; Schiegnitz, E.; Goetze, E.; Al-Nawas, B.; Pabst, A.M. Biomarkers in Diagnosis and Therapy of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Review of the Literature. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 45, 722–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Saleem, Z.; Shaikh, A.H.; Zaman, U.; Ahmed, S.; Majeed, M.M.; Kazmi, A.; Farooqui, W.A. Estimation of Salivary Matrix Metalloproteinases- 12 (MMP- 12) Levels among Patients Presenting with Oral Submucous Fibrosis and Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. BMC Oral Health 2021, 21, e87721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tarrad, N.A.F.; Hassan, S.; Shaker, O.G.; AbdelKawy, M. “Salivary LINC00657 and miRNA-106a as Diagnostic Biomarkers for Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma, an Observational Diagnostic Study”. BMC Oral Health 2023, 23, 994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Cohen, E.R.; Reis, I.M.; Gomez-Fernandez, C.; Smith, D.; Pereira, L.; Freiser, M.E.; Marotta, G.; Thomas, G.R.; Sargi, Z.B.; Franzmann, E.J. CD44 and Associated Markers in Oral Rinses and Tissues from Oral and Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients. Oral Oncol. 2020, 106, 104720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Rajaram, S.; Danasekaran, B.; Venkatachalapathy, R.; Prashad, K.; Rajaram, S. N-Acetylneuraminic Acid: A Scrutinizing Tool in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Diagnosis. Dent. Res. J. 2017, 14, 267–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kitamura, N.; Hashida, Y.; Higuchi, T.; Ohno, S.; Sento, S.; Sasabe, E.; Murakami, I.; Yamamoto, T.; Daibata, M. Detection of Merkel Cell Polyomavirus in Multiple Primary Oral Squamous Cell Carcinomas. Odontology 2023, 111, 971–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Gaba, F.I.; Sheth, C.C.; Veses, V. Salivary Biomarkers and Their Efficacies as Diagnostic Tools for Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2021, 50, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Cheng, Y.-S.L.; Jordan, L.; Chen, H.-S.; Kang, D.; Oxford, L.; Plemons, J.; Parks, H.; Rees, T. Chronic Periodontitis Can Affect the Levels of Potential Oral Cancer Salivary mRNA Biomarkers. J. Periodontal Res. 2017, 52, 428–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Shabbir, A.; Waheed, H.; Ahmed, S.; Shaikh, S.S.; Farooqui, W.A. Association of Salivary Cathepsin B in Different Histological Grades among Patients Presenting with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. BMC Oral Health 2022, 22, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mougeot, J.-L.C.; Stevens, C.B.; Almon, K.G.; Paster, B.J.; Lalla, R.V.; Brennan, M.T.; Mougeot, F.B. Caries-Associated Oral Microbiome in Head and Neck Cancer Radiation Patients: A Longitudinal Study. J. Oral Microbiol. 2019, 11, 1586421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Ishikawa, S.; Sugimoto, M.; Edamatsu, K.; Sugano, A.; Kitabatake, K.; Iino, M. Discrimination of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma from Oral Lichen Planus by Salivary Metabolomics. Oral Dis. 2020, 26, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Babiuch, K.; Bednarczyk, A.; Gawlik, K.; Pawlica-Gosiewska, D.; Kęsek, B.; Darczuk, D.; Stępień, P.; Chomyszyn-Gajewska, M.; Kaczmarzyk, T. Evaluation of Enzymatic and Non-Enzymatic Antioxidant Status and Biomarkers of Oxidative Stress in Saliva of Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Oral Leukoplakia: A Pilot Study. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2019, 77, 408–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Shan, J.; Sun, Z.; Yang, J.; Xu, J.; Shi, W.; Wu, Y.; Fan, Y.; Li, H. Discovery and Preclinical Validation of Proteomic Biomarkers in Saliva for Early Detection of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinomas. Oral Dis. 2019, 25, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Katase, N.; Kudo, K.; Ogawa, K.; Sakamoto, Y.; Nishimatsu, S.; Yamauchi, A.; Fujita, S. DKK3/CKAP4 Axis Is Associated with Advanced Stage and Poorer Prognosis in Oral Cancer. Oral Dis. 2023, 29, 3193–3204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Abdelwhab, A.; Shaker, O.; Aggour, R.L. Expression of Mucin1 in Saliva in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders (Case Control Study). Oral Dis. 2023, 29, 1487–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kallalli, B.N.; Rawson, K.; Muzammil; Singh, A.; Awati, M.A.; Shivhare, P. Lactate Dehydrogenase as a Biomarker in Oral Cancer and Oral Submucous Fibrosis. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2016, 45, 687–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Chapple, I.L.C.; Mealey, B.L.; Van Dyke, T.E.; Bartold, P.M.; Dommisch, H.; Eickholz, P.; Geisinger, M.L.; Genco, R.J.; Glogauer, M.; Goldstein, M.; et al. Periodontal Health and Gingival Diseases and Conditions on an Intact and a Reduced Periodontium: Consensus Report of Workgroup 1 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J. Periodontol. 2018, 89, S74–S84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Jolivet-Gougeon, A.; Bonnaure-Mallet, M. Screening for Prevalence and Abundance of Capnocytophaga Spp by Analyzing NGS Data: A Scoping Review. Oral Dis. 2021, 27, 1621–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ishikawa, S.; Wong, D.T.W.; Sugimoto, M.; Gleber-Netto, F.O.; Li, F.; Tu, M.; Zhang, Y.; Akin, D.; Iino, M. Identification of Salivary Metabolites for Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Oral Epithelial Dysplasia Screening from Persistent Suspicious Oral Mucosal Lesions. Clin. Oral Investig. 2019, 23, 3557–3563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Banavar, G.; Ogundijo, O.; Julian, C.; Toma, R.; Camacho, F.; Torres, P.J.; Hu, L.; Chandra, T.; Piscitello, A.; Kenny, L.; et al. Detecting Salivary Host and Microbiome RNA Signature for Aiding Diagnosis of Oral and Throat Cancer. Oral Oncol. 2023, 145, 106480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Zhong, X.; Lu, Q.; Zhang, Q.; He, Y.; Wei, W.; Wang, Y. Oral Microbiota Alteration Associated with Oral Cancer and Areca Chewing. Oral Dis. 2021, 27, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Khalil, M.; Zraiki, S.; Khayat, M. Evaluation of the Salivary Zinc Assay as a Potential Diagnostic Tool in Potential Malignant and Malignant Lesions of the Oral Cavity. J. Indian Acad. Oral Med. Radiol. 2019, 31, 293–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chari, A.; Rajesh, P.; Prabhu, S. Estimation of Serum Lactate Dehydrogenase in Smokeless Tobacco Consumers. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2016, 27, 602–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sayal, L.; Hamadah, O.; Almasri, A.; Idrees, M.; Thomson, P.; Kujan, O. Saliva-Based Cell-Free DNA and Cell-Free Mitochondrial DNA in Head and Neck Cancers Have Promising Screening and Early Detection Role. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2023, 52, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ameena, M.; Rathy, R. Evaluation of Tumor Necrosis Factor: Alpha in the Saliva of Oral Cancer, Leukoplakia, and Healthy Controls—A Comparative Study. J. Int. Oral Health 2019, 11, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Yost, S.; Stashenko, P.; Choi, Y.; Kukuruzinska, M.; Genco, C.A.; Salama, A.; Weinberg, E.O.; Kramer, C.D.; Frias-Lopez, J. Increased Virulence of the Oral Microbiome in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Revealed by Metatranscriptome Analyses. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2018, 10, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Feng, Y.; Li, Q.; Chen, J.; Yi, P.; Xu, X.; Fan, Y.; Cui, B.; Yu, Y.; Li, X.; Du, Y.; et al. Salivary Protease Spectrum Biomarkers of Oral Cancer. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2019, 11, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ghallab, N.A.; Shaker, O.G. Serum and Salivary Levels of Chemerin and MMP-9 in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Oral Premalignant Lesions. Clin. Oral Investig. 2017, 21, 937–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sawant, S.; Gokulan, R.; Dongre, H.; Vaidya, M.; Chaukar, D.; Prabhash, K.; Ingle, A.; Joshi, S.; Dange, P.; Joshi, S.; et al. Prognostic Role of Oct4, CD44 and c-Myc in Radio–Chemo-Resistant Oral Cancer Patients and Their Tumourigenic Potential in Immunodeficient Mice. Clin. Oral Investig. 2016, 20, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lee, L.T.; Wong, Y.K.; Hsiao, H.Y.; Wang, Y.W.; Chan, M.Y.; Chang, K.W. Evaluation of Saliva and Plasma Cytokine Biomarkers in Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018, 47, 699–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Triani, M.; Widodo, H.B.; Novrial, D.; Agustina, D.; Nawangtantrini, G. Salivary Ki-67 and Micronucleus Assay as Potential Biomarker of OSCC in Betel Nut Chewers. J. Indian Acad. Oral Med. Radiol. 2021, 33, 146–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Perera, M.; Al-Hebshi, N.N.; Perera, I.; Ipe, D.; Ulett, G.C.; Speicher, D.J.; Chen, T.; Johnson, N.W. A Dysbiotic Mycobiome Dominated by Candida Albicans Is Identified within Oral Squamous-Cell Carcinomas. J. Oral Microbiol. 2017, 9, 1385369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Chan, J.Y.K.; Cheung, M.K.; Lan, L.; Ng, C.; Lau, E.H.L.; Yeung, Z.W.C.; Wong, E.W.Y.; Leung, L.; Qu, X.; Cai, L.; et al. Characterization of Oral Microbiota in HPV and Non-HPV Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Its Association with Patient Outcomes. Oral Oncol. 2022, 135, 106245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kaur, J.; Politis, C.; Jacobs, R. Salivary 8-Hydroxy-2-Deoxyguanosine, Malondialdehyde, Vitamin C, and Vitamin E in Oral Pre-Cancer and Cancer: Diagnostic Value and Free Radical Mechanism of Action. Clin. Oral Investig. 2016, 20, 315–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Kumaran, J.; Ramesh, V.; Daniel, M. Salivary Micrornas (miRNAs) Expression and Its Implications as Biomarkers in Oral Cancer. J. Indian Acad. Oral Med. Radiol. 2022, 34, 475–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Suresh, H.; Gunasekaran, N.; James, A.; Krishnan, R.; Thayalan, D.; Kumar, A. Alpha-L-Fucosidase Levels in Patients with Oral Submucous Fibrosis and Controls: A Comparative Study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Pathol. 2022, 26, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Ferrazzo, K.L.; De Melo, L.D.W.; Danesi, C.C.; Thomas, A.; Bonzanini, L.I.L.; Zanatta, N. Sensitivity and Specificity of Salivary Pipecolic Acid in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Braz. J. Oral Sci. 2022, 22, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. SHahinas, J.; Hysi, D. Methods and Risk of Bias in Molecular Marker Prognosis Studies in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Oral Dis. 2018, 24, 115–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Huang, L.; Pei, T.; Wu, G.; Liu, J.; Pan, W.; Pan, X. Circular RNAs as a Diagnostic Biomarker in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022, 80, 756–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Furquim, C.P.; Soares, G.M.S.; Ribeiro, L.L.; Azcarate-Peril, M.A.; Butz, N.; Roach, J.; Moss, K.; Bonfim, C.; Torres-Pereira, C.C.; Teles, F.R.F. The Salivary Microbiome and Oral Cancer Risk: A Pilot Study in Fanconi Anemia. J. Dent. Res. 2017, 96, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Susha, K.P.; Ravindran, R. Evaluation of Salivary Chemerin in Oral Leukoplakia, Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Healthy Controls. J. Orofac. Sci. 2023, 15, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Liu, W.; Shi, H.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, C.; Shen, X. Association of Salivary miRNAs with Onset and Progression of Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders: Searching for Noninvasive Biomarkers. J. Dent. Sci. 2023, 18, 432–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Peisker, A.; Raschke, G.F.; Fahmy, M.D.; Guentsch, A.; Roshanghias, K.; Hennings, J.; Schultze-Mosgau, S. Salivary MMP-9 in the Detection of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cirugia Bucal 2017, 22, e270–e275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Nakamichi, E.; Sakakura, H.; Mii, S.; Yamamoto, N.; Hibi, H.; Asai, M.; Takahashi, M. Detection of Serum/Salivary Exosomal Alix in Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Oral Dis. 2021, 27, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nguyen, T.T.H.; Sodnom-Ish, B.; Choi, S.W.; Jung, H.-I.; Cho, J.; Hwang, I.; Kim, S.M. Salivary Biomarkers in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 46, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Robledo-Sierra, J.; Ben-Amy, D.P.; Varoni, E.; Bavarian, R.; Simonsen, J.L.; Paster, B.J.; Wade, W.G.; Kerr, R.; Peterson, D.E.; Frandsen Lau, E. World Workshop on Oral Medicine VII: Targeting the Oral Microbiome Part 2: Current Knowledge on Malignant and Potentially Malignant Oral Disorders. Oral Dis. 2019, 25, 28–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Abdul Aziz Shaikh, S.; Denny, E.C.; Kumarchandra, R.; Natarajan, S.; Sunny, J.; Shenoy, N.; K P, N. Evaluation of Salivary Tumor Necrosis Factor α as a Diagnostic Biomarker in Oral Submucosal Fibrosis and Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity and Oropharynx: A Cross Sectional Observational Study. Front. Oral Health 2024, 5, 1375162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Vimal, J.; George, N.A.; Kumar, R.R.; Kattoor, J.; Kannan, S. Identification of Salivary Metabolic Biomarker Signatures for Oral Tongue Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Arch. Oral Biol. 2023, 155, 105780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Man, Q.-W.; Li, R.-F.; Zhong, N.-N.; Liu, B. Prognostic Value of CD8-to-EGFR Ratio in Salivary Microvesicles of Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Oral Dis. 2023, 29, 1480–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Yang, S.-F.; Huang, H.-D.; Fan, W.-L.; Jong, Y.-J.; Chen, M.-K.; Huang, C.-N.; Chuang, C.-Y.; Kuo, Y.-L.; Chung, W.-H.; Su, S.-C. Compositional and Functional Variations of Oral Microbiota Associated with the Mutational Changes in Oral Cancer. Oral Oncol. 2018, 77, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Yang, S.F.; Lin, C.W.; Chuang, C.Y.; Lee, Y.C.; Chung, W.H.; Lai, H.C.; Chang, L.C.; Su, S.C. Host Genetic Associations with Salivary Microbiome in Oral Cancer. J. Dent. Res. 2022, 101, 590–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Tantray, S.; Sharma, S.; Prabhat, K.; Nasrullah, N.; Gupta, M. Salivary Metabolite Signatures of Oral Cancer and Leukoplakia through Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. J. Oral Maxillofac. Pathol. 2022, 26, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Gulzar, R.A.; Ajitha, P.; Subbaiyan, H. Comparative Evaluation on the Levels of Salivary Mucin MUC1 in Precancerous and Cancerous Conditions. Int. J. Dent. Oral Sci. 2021, 8, 3734–3737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Gupta, A.; Tripathi, A.; Patil, R.; Kumar, V.; Khanna, V.; Singh, V. Estimation of Salivary and Serum Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor in Treated and Untreated Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Oral Biol. Craniofacial Res. 2019, 9, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Karmelić, I.; Salarić, I.; Baždarić, K.; Rožman, M.; Zajc, I.; Mravak-Stipetić, M.; Bago, I.; Brajdić, D.; Lovrić, J.; Macan, D. Salivary Scca1, Scca2 and Trop2 in Oral Cancer Patients— A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study. Dent. J. 2022, 10, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Tang, K.D.; Amenábar, J.M.; Schussel, J.L.; Torres-Pereira, C.C.; Bonfim, C.; Dimitrova, N.; Hartel, G.; Punyadeera, C. Profiling Salivary miRNA Expression Levels in Fanconi Anemia Patients—A Pilot Study. Odontology 2024, 112, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.; Bossuyt, P.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.; Akl, E.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. MetaArXiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.