ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2015
Caries prevention - little evidence for use of chlorhexidine varnishes and gels.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chlorhexidine in Dentistry: Pharmacology, Uses, and Adverse Effects.International dental journal · 2022Review
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 sourcesCochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase and CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of chlorhexidine-containing oral products with no treatment or placebo on dental caries, and comparing the effects of one chlorhexidine-containing oral product with another were considered. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted trial data and assessed risk of bias. Owing to the clinical diversity of the included studies with respect to age, composition of intervention, and variation in outcome measures and follow-up, meta-analysis was not carried out. A narrative synthesis was presented.
resultsEight trials were included. Six were at high risk of bias and two at unclear risk. Six trials compared chlorhexidine varnish with placebo or no treatment. Data from two trials (690 patients) one using 10% chlorhexidine varnish and the other, 40%, showed that this led to an increase in the DMFS increment in the varnish group of 0.53 (95% CI; -0.47 to 1.53). Only one trial involving 496 patients and using 10% chlorhexidine varnish provided usable data for elevated mutans streptococci levels > 4 with RR 0.93 (95% CI; 0.80 to 1.07). Two trials (487 patients) compared 0.12% chlorhexidine gel with no treatment in the primary dentition. The presence of new caries gave rise to a 95% confidence interval that was compatible with either an increase or a decrease in caries incidence (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.77).
conclusionsThe authors found little evidence from the eight trials on varnishes and gels included in this review to either support or refute the assertion that chlorhexidine is more effective than placebo or no treatment in the prevention of caries or the reduction of mutans streptococci levels in children and adolescents. There were no trials on other products containing chlorhexidine such as sprays, toothpastes, chewing gums or mouthrinses. Further high quality research is required, in particular evaluating the effects on both the primary and permanent dentition and using other chlorhexidine-containing oral products.
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.