Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23258179›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2012

Limited evidence for preventing childhood caries using fluoride supplements.

Lewis M Lampert, Danny Lo

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lewis M LampertNYU College of Dentistry, New York, USA.
Danny Lo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

data sourcesThe Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, WHOLIS/PAHO/MEDCARIB/LILACS/BBO and Current Controlled Trials databases. Selected authors were contacted and the reference lists of articles searched. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials with a minimum of two years' follow up comparing fluoride supplements (tablets, drops, lozenges) with no fluoride supplement or with other preventive measures such as topical fluorides in children less than 16 years of age at the start were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Eligibility, risk of bias assessment and data abstraction were conducted by two authors independently and in duplicate. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and by consulting a third author. The prevented fraction (PF), defined as the mean caries increment in controls minus mean caries increment in the treated group divided by mean caries increment in controls was used to evaluate efficacy. Random-effects meta-analysis was used where the data could be pooled. Heterogeneity was assessed and adverse effects recorded when reported.

resultsEleven studies (involving 7196 children) were included. In permanent teeth, comparing fluoride supplements with no fluoride supplement, (three studies), supplement use was associated with a 24% (95% confidence interval (CI) 16 to 33%) reduction in decayed, missing and filled surfaces (DMFS). The effect of fluoride supplements was unclear on primary teeth. In one study, no caries-inhibiting effect was observed on deciduous teeth while in another study, the use of fluoride supplements was associated with a substantial reduction in caries increment.When fluoride supplements were compared with topical fluorides or with other preventive measures, there was no differential effect on permanent or deciduous teeth. The review found limited information on the adverse effects associated with the use of fluoride supplements.

conclusionsThis review suggests that the use of fluoride supplements is associated with a reduction in caries increment when compared with no fluoride supplement in permanent teeth. The effect of fluoride supplements was unclear on deciduous teeth. When compared with the administration of topical fluorides, no differential effect was observed. We rated 10 trials as being at unclear risk of bias and one at high risk of bias, and therefore the trials provide weak evidence about the efficacy of fluoride supplements.

Identifiers

PMID23258179
OpenAlexW2025964440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.