Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31562404›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2019

What concentration of fluoride toothpaste should dental teams be recommending?

R S Levine

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Fluoride content in children's dentifrices marketed in Argentina.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

R S LevineHon. Senior Research Fellow in Child Health Academic Unit of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Paediatrics University of Leeds; Department of Oral Surgery University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Dental CariesToothpastesAdolescentAdultCariostatic AgentsChildChild, PreschoolDentition, PermanentFluoridesHumansCariostatic AgentsFluoridesToothpastes

Identifiers

PMID31562404
OpenAlexW2976742112

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.