ArticleFrontiers in oral health2026
Impact of explicit fluoride-related language in prefectural dental health ordinance on fluoride mouth-rinse programs dissemination in Japan: a quasi-experimental study.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To estimate the impact of explicit fluoride-related language in prefectural dental health ordinance on the dissemination of school-based fluoride mouth-rinse (S-FMR) programs. Methods: A longitudinal ecological design was employed to analyze prefectural-level panel data from Japan spanning 2007 to 2018. Ordinances enacted between 2010 and 2014 were categorized by the presence of explicit fluoride-related terms: 1) explicit mention of "fluoride mouth-rinse" (FMR group); 2) explicit mention of "fluoride application" (FA group); and 3) no fluoride-related policy language (NF group). The outcome was the proportion of children aged 4-15 years participating in S-FMR programs. Total prefectural income per year, prefectural mean age, and prefectural mean number of decayed, missing, or filled primary teeth (dmft) among 3-year-old children were included as covariates. The Callaway and Sant'Anna Difference-in-Differences (CSDID) method was applied to estimate the average treatment effects on the treated (ATT) for the FMR and FA groups under a conditional parallel trends assumption. Results: A total of 39 prefectures were analyzed. The pre-post increase in S-FMR participation was greater in the FMR group than in the FA or NF groups, with comparable differences (FMR: 12%; FA and NF: 5% each). In the CSDID analysis, both the FMR and FA groups showed a significant increase in S-FMR participation compared with the NF group, with a larger effect in the FMR group [FMR: 8% (95% CI: 2%-15%); FA: 5% (95% CI: 0%-9%)]. The event-study estimates indicated that the effects strengthened over time, particularly in the FMR group. Conclusions: Prefectural dental health ordinances explicitly refer to fluoride, particularly FMR, are associated with a greater dissemination of the proportion of children participating in S-FMR programs. These findings suggest that more specific and explicit policy language in dental health ordinances may enhance the dissemination of S-FMR programs.
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.