ArticlePloS one2025
Topical fluoride hesitancy and opposition are significantly and positively associated: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Probiotic supplementation and dental caries prevention in children and adolescents: a systematic review of strain-specific and context-dependent effects.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Pooled it
- Water fluoridation today: - benefits and challenges.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The goal of this study was to evaluate the associations between topical fluoride hesitancy and opposition to determine if hesitancy is a potential precursor to opposition. We administered an 85-item survey (11/2020-09/2021) to 1,135 caregivers that included the 20-item, 5-domain Fluoride Hesitancy Identification Tool (FHIT), from which we created five domain-specific scores of topical fluoride hesitancy (none/moderate/high for each domain); a score reflecting any topical fluoride hesitancy (moderate/high on any of the five domains); and a topical fluoride hesitancy severity score (total number of moderate/high responses to the five domains; range 0-5). The survey measured degree of topical fluoride opposition (0-10 with no = 0 and yes ≥ 1). We ran confounder-adjusted logistic regression models to evaluate associations between topical fluoride hesitancy scores and opposition. The analyses included 1,042 caregivers; mean age was 42.0 years (SD: 8.3), 78.7% were woman, and 58.3% were white. General hesitancy was reported by 82.9% of surveyed caregivers. Domain-specific hesitancy prevalence (moderate/high) was 81.3% for the necessity domain, 31.3% for chemicals, 19.5% for harm, 30.1% for uncertainty, and 25.2% for distrust. For severity, 14.7% of caregivers reported moderate/high hesitancy for all 5 domains, 7.7% for 4, 6.8% for 3, 9.3% for 2, and 43.9% for 1 domain. Opposition was reported by 39.1%. In the regression models, every hesitancy measure had a statistically significant (p < 0.01), positive association with opposition. In conclusion, topical fluoride hesitancy and opposition are positively associated but not identical. Additional work should elucidate the relationship between the two to inform strategies to address topical fluoride hesitancy and opposition.
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.