ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2015
Topical agents for root caries prevention.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Comparative Evaluation of Root Caries Remineralization Effect of Plain Milk, 5 ppm of Fluoridated Milk, and 5 ppm of Sodium Fluoride in Deionized Water Using Surface Microhardness Test: AnJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised and nonrandomised, controlled, and prospective studies comparing preventive regimes for root caries were considered. Only English or German language studies were considered. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Standard data items were extracted. Mean differences (MD) and standard mean differences (SMD) were primary effect measures. Changes were calculated for DMFRS/DFRS (decayed, missing, filled root surfaces), and RCI (root caries index). Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and grading of evidence was performed according to the GRADE.
resultsThirty trials reported in 34 studies involving 10,126 patients were included. Twenty-nine were RCTs, the other a controlled trial. Risk of bias was considered low for only five studies. In all 28 chemical agents were tested. Eleven studies assessed dentifrices; ten rinses; eight varnishes; three fluoride solutions; three gels; two ozone applications; one preventive dental regimen. Meta-analyses revealed that dentifrices containing 5,000 ppm F- (RR = 0.49; 95% CI= 0.42, 0.57; high level of evidence) or 1.5% arginine plus 1,450 ppm F- (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.64, 0.98; very low level) are more effective in inactivating RCLs than dentifrices containing 1,100 to 1,450 ppm F-. Self-applied AmF/SnF2-containing dentifrice and rinse decreased the initiation of RCLs when compared with NaF products (SMD = 0.15; 95% CI = -0.22, 0.52; low level evidence). Mouth rinse containing 225 to 900 ppm F- revealed a significantly reduced DMFRS/DFRS (MD = -0.18; 95% CI = -0.35, -0.01; low level) when compared with a placebo rinse. Significantly reduced RCI was found for Chlorhexidine (MD = -0.67; 95% CI = -1.01, -0.32; very low level evidence) as well as SDF (MD = -0.33; 95% CI = -0.39, -0.28; very low level) when compared with placebo varnish.
conclusionsBased on meta-analysis, dentifrice containing 5,000 ppm F- and professionally applied CHX or SDF varnish may inactivate existing and/or reduce the initiation of RCLs. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to the low numbers of clinical trials for each agent, the high risk of bias within studies, and the limiting grade of evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.