ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2026
Is bioactive glass toothpaste an effective alternative to fluoride toothpaste for preventing early childhood caries?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 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
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onLi T, Guo H, Liu C, Jiang H, Gao S, Du M. Effectiveness of Bioactive Glass-Based Toothpaste for Early Childhood Caries Prevention: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int Dent J 2026;76:103985.
designDouble-blind, multicentre, parallel group cluster-randomised controlled trial (class-level randomisation). CASE SELECTION: Children aged 3-4 years at risk of early childhood caries (ECC) were recruited and randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups: a fluoride‑free bioactive glass (BAG) toothpaste group and a fluoride toothpaste (800 ppm) group. Both groups were followed over 27 months to monitor the incidence of new carious lesions. DATA ANALYSIS: Caries outcomes were evaluated using established clinical caries assessment criteria suitable for early childhood populations, with comparisons made between groups to determine differences in caries incidence and overall preventive effect. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate group differences in caries development.
resultsThe trial found that the fluoride-free BAG toothpaste was effective in preventing ECC and performed comparably to the fluoride toothpaste. Both formulations provided measurable caries preventive benefits, indicating that BAG has potential as a clinically relevant alternative to fluoride for young children.
conclusionsBAG toothpaste shows promise as a fluoride-free preventive agent for ECC. Its comparable effectiveness to fluoride toothpaste suggests it may be a useful option for children in situations where fluoride use is restricted, contraindicated, or declined by caregivers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41917475What 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.