ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2025
Silver diamine fluoride versus sodium fluoride varnish in the treatment of proximal caries in primary molars: A randomized clinical trial.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 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.
- TheBiomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- Effect of silver diamine fluoride versus fluoride varnish in arresting early childhood caries: A clinical study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two sodium fluoride varnish systems in preventing dental caries in children: a randomized clinical trial.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
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 present randomized clinical trial with a split-mouth design investigated the effectiveness of 30% silver diamine fluoride (SDF) compared to 5% sodium flouride varnish (NaD) in arresting proximal caries in the primary molars of preschool-aged children. Forty-three children with contralateral initial proximal carious lesions on primary molars were included. Caries status at the baseline was recorded using clinical and radiographic indices. Lesions restricted to the enamel or the exterior third of dentin were included. A sufficient space was created between the contacts using elastic separators. Then, 5% NaF varnish and 30% SDF were randomly applied to either side of the mouth. Six months later, bitewing radiographs were obtained, and the post-intervention caries scores were compared with the baseline radiographs. Children's oral hygiene was recorded via a questionnaire. The findings indicated that the baseline and post-intervention caries status were comparable between the groups. The success rate of the SDF treatment (74.4%) and the NaF varnish (67.5%) was comparable. Baseline radiographic caries status was significantly related to the treatment result in the NaF group (p = 0.047). Dental flossing was significantly associated with the treatment result when SDF was used (p = 0.027). In conclusion, both fluoride-containing materials exhibited comparable efficacy in arresting early proximal caries lesions in primary molars. SDF 30% showed a higher but insignificant success rate in arresting initial proximal lesions of the primary molar compared to NaF 5% varnish.Trial registration: IRCT, IRCT20220425054647N1. Registered on 24 September 2022, https://en.irct.ir/trial/63168 .
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.