Trial reportCaries research2024
A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial of a Targeted Distributed Toothpaste and Toothbrushing Programme.
Trial report in Caries research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim was to assess the effectiveness of a distributed, targeted toothbrush and toothpaste programme on referrals for tooth extraction under Dental General Anaesthetic (DGA), in children of high-risk families compared to usual care.
methodsA recruiter and assessor-blinded, clustered parallel randomised control trial (RCT). Families with one or more children aged between 3 and 10 years having undergone a DGA operation for extraction of carious teeth, were approached within hospitals in the North West of England. Families were randomised at the cluster level in a 1:1 ratio. All eligible children within the family consented to the study. The primary outcome was participant referral for a DGA 6-24-month post-randomisation.
resultsA total of 961 families (1,671 children) were randomised, 482 families (832 children) to the intervention, and 479 families (839 children) to the control group. Families (1,662 children, 955 families) were included in the final analysis (825 intervention, 837 control). Marginal regression models (generalised estimating equation approach) taking into account cluster membership were used to model the effectiveness of the intervention at 24 and 48 month follow-up, including the variables, age, sex, and IMD quintile. Seventy-six children (9.2%) in the intervention group had a DGA referral within 2 years compared to 57 children (6.8%) in the control group. The study found no effect of a clinically meaningful difference between the intervention group and usual care (risk ratio 1.36, 95% CI: 0.98-1.89) in reducing referral for DGA for a targeted postal toothpaste/toothbrush program in a contemporary, population with previous family experience of DGA residing in an area of high deprivation.
conclusionThe target of the intervention (families of children with a DGA) was the correct focus given the referrals observed over 2 and 4 years. The study can aid policymakers, local authorities and commissioners to understand repeat DGA within families and further need for intervention.
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.