ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2025
A Comparison Between Parents with Different Attitudes Towards Topical Fluoride Application for Their Children: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough fluoride is known to be effective and safe, an increasing number of parents refuse to allow fluoride applications for their children. This study aimed to compare the parents who accepted and rejected fluoride application for their children in terms of their attitudes toward fluoride and vaccinations, sociodemographic characteristics, and source of knowledge. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, a previously validated questionnaire was administered to 85 parents who did not consent to have topical fluoride applied to their children's teeth (AF group) and the 143 parents who consented to have it applied (F group) in a pediatric dentistry clinic. Data were analysed using the independent t-test and chi-squared test.
resultsIn the F group, the number of those who disagreed with the statement that fluoride causes intellectual disability, autism, and damages the pineal gland was statistically significantly higher than in the AF group (p 0.05). The most common source of information for the AF group was the internet/social media (67.06%), while for the F group, it was dentists/medical doctors (62.24%). More parents in the F group stated that childhood and Covid-19 vaccinations must be performed; this was a statistically significant difference (p 0.05).
conclusionNo relationship was found between fluoride hesitancy and the educational level of the parents. Most parents in the AF group have doubts and concerns about fluoride rather than being strongly opposed to it. Therefore, educational programs given to parents are likely to have a positive effect on their acquisition of correct information.
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.