ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Attitude of Midwives towards Fluoride Recommendations and Oral Prevention in Infants and Young Children.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Midwives' knowledge and preventive practices regarding early childhood caries: a quantitative study in France.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Article
- [Early dental visits - a systematic analysis of the information content of national dental child health records].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2025Article
- Early prevention from the first tooth - what do German dental homepages recommend?BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Dental Practice Websites in Germany-How Do They Inform about Fluoridation?Dentistry journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early childhood caries is a challenge. Early dental screening flanked by multidisciplinary preventions by pediatricians, dentists, and midwives (MWs) may be helpful. New recommendations for dental screening in children (FUs) and fluoride have been introduced in Germany. The aim of this study was to investigate whether midwives consider FUs useful and implement early childhood caries prevention, as well as fluoride recommendations. The survey was conducted using an online questionnaire. Demographic data, including 11 items on early childhood dental prophylaxis and fluoride, were requested. Agreement was recorded using Likert scales. The data were analyzed descriptively. Two hundred and seventeen female MWs participated (age: 44.1 (11.04) years). One hundred and four (47.9%) participants knew about the FUs. Of the MWs, 30.7% found a referral from the first tooth to be very important (important/neutral/unimportant: 27%/27.9%/14.4%), compared with 84.8% for the entire primary dentition (11.8%/2.8%/0.5%). Of the MWs, 41.7% always recommended fluoride toothpaste from the first tooth (often/occasionally/rarely/never: 22.7%/12.4%/7.9%/15.3%) and 48.1% completely rejected fluoride-free toothpaste (always/often/occasionally/rarely: 9.8%/8.9%/17.3%/15.9%). In addition, 54.8% never recommended the use of fluoride tablets (always/often/occasionally/rarely: 9.2%/7.4%/10.2%/18.4%). The FUs are not yet well-known among MWs, and only less than one-third recommended dental check-ups, starting with the first tooth. This contrasts with the high uptake of fluoridated toothpaste. More educational work should be carried out to convince more MWs of the benefits of the FUs.
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.