ArticleClinics and practice2024
Comparative Perceptions of Fluoride Toxicity in Oral Hygiene Products: Insights from the General Population and Healthcare Professionals.
Article in Clinics and practice, 2024. 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.
- Benchmark Approach to Unravel Fluoride Toxicity: Liver and Kidney Disruptions in Subacutely Exposed Rats.Journal of xenobiotics · 2026Article
- Improving the participation of 3-14 aged children's parents in fluoride varnish program: a quasi-experimental study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Assessment of medical and dental students' knowledge, attitudes and practices related to fluoride exposure: a cross-sectional study from Jordan.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe safety of oral hygiene products is a growing concern, particularly regarding the toxicity of specific ingredients used in their formulations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes of dentists, physicians, pharmacists, and the general public regarding ingredients in oral hygiene products, especially fluoride. Additionally, this study aimed to identify which ingredients may exhibit potential toxicity based on historical records of any adverse effects being induced by a material/component.
methodsA self-administered questionnaire was used in an online cross-sectional observational study to collect data on sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge of fluoride in dental medicine, fluoride usage practices in oral hygiene products, opinions on ingredient toxicity in oral hygiene products, and personal experiences of adverse reactions to products and their components. The collected data underwent descriptive and regression analyses to reveal patterns and relationships within the dataset.
resultsThe study found a moderate overall knowledge level regarding fluoride usage in dentistry among participants (Md = 5.00, IQR 2.50-7.00). Healthcare professionals exhibited significantly higher knowledge scores compared to the general population (
conclusionThis study underscores disparities in fluoride knowledge between healthcare professionals and the general population in Croatia, with dental experts exhibiting a superior understanding. Despite lingering misconceptions about fluoride content and potential toxicity, the majority of participants acknowledge its oral health benefits and use fluoride products regularly.
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.