ArticleInternational journal of dental hygiene2025
Should we be concerned about the use of non-fluoride toothpaste? A survey study in two European countries.
Article in International journal of dental hygiene, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating fluoride hesitancy: mapping the evidence base for fluoride-free toothpaste alternatives.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- Toothbrush and toothpaste preferences among Southern Saudi children: insights into oral hygiene awareness and practices.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Should we be concerned about the use of non-fluoride toothpaste? A survey study in two European countries.International journal of dental hygiene · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundToothpastes available in Europe contain a range of fluoride concentrations, with some meeting the recommended level for caries prevention (>1000 ppm fluoride (ppm)) and others containing low or no fluoride. This study evaluated toothpaste fluoride concentrations in Latvia and Lithuania to inform targeted public health strategies in regions with a high prevalence of dental caries.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from May 2019 to May 2020, using a validated questionnaire in Latvia and Lithuania. Nationally representative samples (1309 families and 5436 members) provided data through a mixed-mode survey (paper and online) on sociodemographic information, toothpaste type, brand, and type. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests (p < 0.05) were used for analysis.
resultsFifteen percent of families used non-fluoridated toothpaste and 12% used <1000 part per million (ppm) fluoride. In Latvia, 56.8% of preschoolers and 28.7% of schoolchildren used <1000 ppm or non-fluoride toothpaste, whereas in Lithuania, 47.2% of preschoolers and 29.1% of schoolchildren used <1000 ppm or non-fluoride toothpaste; 63% of adolescents and 73% of adults used toothpaste with optimal fluoride content (≥1000 ppm). Of the 228 registered toothpaste types, 62% contained more than 1000 ppm, which is optimal for caries prevention; 29% of Latvian and 24% of Lithuanian families used at least one non-fluoridated toothpaste.
conclusionThis study revealed significant gaps in the use of fluoride toothpaste among families in Latvia and Lithuania, especially among children. To effectively prevent dental caries, targeted interventions, and education must promote optimal fluoride toothpaste use, particularly among vulnerable populations.
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.