Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35103837›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2022

Efficacy of nano-hydroxyapatite on caries prevention-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Richard Johannes Wierichs, Thomas G Wolf, Guglielmo Campus, Thiago S Carvalho

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Richard Johannes WierichsDepartment of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. richard.wierichs@zmk.unibe.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4239-199X
Thomas G WolfDepartment of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Guglielmo CampusDepartment of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Thiago S CarvalhoDepartment of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION/

objectivesThe review systematically explored in vivo or in situ studies investigating the efficacy of nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) to reduce initiation of or to remineralize initial caries lesions. DATA: Prospective controlled (non-)randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of a nHA compared to any other (placebo) treatment or untreated/standard control. SOURCES: Three electronic databases (Central Cochrane, PubMed-MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE) were screened. Outcomes were, e.g., ICDAS score, laser fluorescence, enamel remineralization rate, mineral loss, and lesion depth. No language or time restrictions were applied. Risk of bias and level of evidence were graded using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and GRADE profiler. STUDY SELECTION/

resultsFive in vivo (and 5 in situ) studies with at least 633 teeth (1031 specimens) being assessed in more than 420 (95) patients were included. No meta-analysis could be performed for in vivo studies due to the high heterogeneity of the study designs and the variety of outcomes. In situ studies indicate that under demineralization conditions, NaF was able to hinder demineralization, whereas nHA did not; simultaneously, nHA did not differ from the fluoride-free control. In contrast, under remineralizing conditions, nHA and NaF show the same remineralizing potential. However, the level of evidence was very low. Furthermore, six studies showed a high risk of bias, and six studies were funded/published by the manufacturers of the tested products.

conclusionThe low number of clinical studies, the relatively short follow-up periods, the high risks of bias, and the limiting grade of evidence do not allow for conclusive evidence on the efficacy of nHA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: No conclusive evidence on the efficacy of nHA could be obtained based on the low number of clinical studies, the relatively short follow-up periods, the high risks of bias, the limiting grade of evidence, and study conditions that do not reflect the everyday conditions.

Indexed as

Dental CariesDental Caries SusceptibilityDurapatiteFluoridesHumansProspective StudiesDurapatiteFluoridesDental cariesMeta-analysisMicro-hydroyapatiteMicroinvasive treatmentNano-hydroyapatiteSystematic reviewWhite spot lesions

Identifiers

PMID35103837
PMCPMC8979882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.