SynthesisBMC oral health2026
Silver diamine fluoride versus atraumatic restorative treatment for management of childhood caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Knowledge, attitude and practice of paediatric dentists towards silver diammine fluoride in Egypt: a national survey.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) in comparison with the standard Atraumatic Restorative Therapy (ART) in arresting dental caries in children.
methodsWe searched the databases of CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus till 16 August 2025. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SDF alone vs. ART alone for caries arrest in pediatric patients with at least 12 months of follow-up. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated in a random-effects meta-analysis model. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the frequency of SDF application and follow-up. Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias-2 tool was used to assess risk of bias. The review was registered on PROSPERO database (CRD420251127028).
resultsEight RCTs were included. All were parallel-arm studies. Comparing data of 6430 teeth or surfaces treated with SDF with 5466 teeth or surfaces treated with ART, the meta-analysis showed that SDF had marginally but significantly higher caries arrest rate as compared to ART (RR: 1.21 95% CI: 1.02, 1.44 95% I2: 96%). No publication bias was noted. Results lost significance during sensitivity analysis. Results also turned non-significant on both subgroup analyses based on the frequency of SDF application and follow-up.
conclusionsVery low-quality evidence suggests that SDF may be marginally better than ART at arresting dental caries in children. Evidence must be interpreted with caution given the high heterogeneity, methodological concerns in included studies and the lack of robustness of results during sensitivity and subgroup analyses.
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.