ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2016
Casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate products in caries prevention.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2016. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Restorative Dental Resin Functionalized with Calcium Methacrylate with a Hydroxyapatite Remineralization Capacity.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PreMedline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.Study selectionClinical trials, investigating only clinical caries outcomes on participants of any age comparing the use of Tooth Mousse(®) or Tooth Mousse Plus(®) to a routine oral care regimen for the prevention of dental caries with or without comparison to additional preventive products. Studies that used other formulations of CCP-ACP were excluded. Trials using split-mouth design were also excluded. Only English language papers were considered.Data extraction and synthesisPapers were assessed independently by both authors using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.1 Meta-analysis was not possible due to study heterogeneity.ResultsTwelve studies were available for the final review; three studies on caries prevention were assessed as having low risk of bias. The remaining nine studies, with high risk of bias, reported on treatment or regression of early carious lesions. Two RCTs reported no significant benefits in the use of Tooth Mousse(®) over brushing with a fluoride toothpaste, a third study demonstrated a statistically significant increase in enamel microhardness for the Tooth Mousse(®) group compared to control group but no difference to the group who had fluoride gel treatment. Overall the authors concluded that Tooth Mousse(®) performs no better than fluoride in the prevention of carious lesions.Seven of nine studies evaluated caries lesion severity in orthodontic patients, with four demonstrating statistically significant white spot regression. Two trials in non-orthodontic patients showed statistically significant remineralising potential of Tooth Mousse(®) over fluoride mouthrinse or the regular use of fluoride toothpaste in 14-30 days.ConclusionsThe authors found no evidence to support the use of Tooth Mousse(®) over brushing with a fluoride toothpaste for the prevention of early caries. ToothMousse(®) appeared to benefit regression of white spot lesions associated with orthodontic treatment but the evidence is limited. Effectiveness of Tooth Mousse(®) was not significantly increased by the addition of fluoride in Tooth Mousse Plus(®) and evidence is still lacking to support the use of one over another. High quality randomised clinical trials are needed before these products can be recommended for the prevention and treatment of early carious lesions in the general population.Source of fundingThe publication was funded by Colgate Palmolive, Australia.
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.