“…To assess the reproducibility of these results, a limited number of studies were found ( Kikuta et al., 1996 ; Trim et al., 2011 ; Bonner et al., 2014 ; Garcia et al., 2018a ; Santi-Rocca, 2020 ; Badri et al., 2021 ; Eslahi et al., 2021 ). The comparisons were further complicated by the reliance of a majority of the previous studies on microscopic detection methods (examination of wet mounts or permanent stained smears) ( Athari et al., 2007 ; Ghabanchi et al., 2010 ; Al-hamiary et al., 2011 ; Ibrahim and Abbas, 2012 ; Yazar et al., 2016 ; Hassan et al., 2019 ). Possible explanations for discrepancy between the results of microscopic detection of oral parasites and the PCR-based results include: the subjectivity of the microscopic approach which depends on the skills and experience of the examiner, the number of the fields examined, the method of microscopy used (light vs. phase-contrast), the use of staining, the nature of mounting media, and the lag time between sampling and examination (particularly for wet mount examination which depends on the viability of oral parasites, since motility is one of the decisive defining features for diagnosis) as discussed previously by ( Bonner et al., 2014 ).…”