ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2019
What concentration of fluoride toothpaste should dental teams be recommending?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Salivary fluoride concentration following toothbrushing with and without rinsing: a randomised controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2022Trial
- Fluoride content in children's dentifrices marketed in Argentina.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2025Article
- Article
- Updates on Caries Risk Assessment-A Literature Review.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
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 sources A total of 96 studies reported in peer reviewed journals between 1955 and 2014 Study selection The systematic review selected randomised controlled trials that compared toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste with toothbrushing with a non-fluoride toothpaste or toothpaste of a different fluoride concentration, with a follow-up period of at least one year. The primary outcome was caries increment measured by the change from baseline in all permanent or primary teeth. Data extraction and synthesis Two members of the review team, independently and in duplicate, undertook the selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. They graded the certainty of the evidence through discussion and consensus. The primary effect measure was the mean difference or standardised mean difference caries increment. Where it was appropriate to pool data, they used random-effects pairwise or network meta-analysis. Results In the primary dentition of young children, 1500 ppm fluoride toothpaste was found to reduce caries increment when compared with non-fluoride toothpaste. In the adult permanent dentition, 1000 or 1100 ppm fluoride toothpaste was found to reduce DMFS increment when compared with non-fluoride toothpaste in adults of all ages, however, the evidence for DMFT was of low certainty. Conclusions This Cochrane Review supports the benefits of using fluoride toothpaste in preventing caries when compared to non-fluoride toothpaste. Evidence for the effects of different fluoride concentrations was found to be more limited, but a dose-response effect was observed for D(M)FS in children and adolescents. For many comparisons of different concentrations the caries-preventive effects and the confidence in these effect estimates are uncertain and could be challenged by further research.
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.