ReviewEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Navigating fluoride hesitancy: mapping the evidence base for fluoride-free toothpaste alternatives.
Review in European journal of pediatrics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to synthesise and interpret evidence relating to fluoride-free toothpaste alternatives for caries prevention, examining how these products have been studied, the outcomes used to evaluate them, and how this evidence may inform discussions with children and families. A scoping review was undertaken. Electronic searches of major bibliographic databases identified peer-reviewed studies published between January 2020 and March 2026 evaluating fluoride-free toothpaste formulations. Data were extracted on intervention type, study design, outcome measures, and population characteristics and synthesised narratively with emphasis on patterns of evidence generation rather than comparative effectiveness. A total of 122 studies were included, comprising predominantly laboratory and mechanistic investigations, with only 20 studies providing direct paediatric evidence. Fluoride-free formulations were associated with antimicrobial activity, biofilm modulation, and surrogate remineralisation outcomes. Direct assessment of clinical caries outcomes was uncommon, and substantial heterogeneity was observed in formulation composition, study design, and outcome selection.
conclusionFluoride-free toothpaste formulations demonstrate measurable biological effects, but evidence is dominated by surrogate outcomes and short-term study designs. While hydroxyapatite-based products have the most consistent evidence base, no fluoride-free category currently has evidence comparable to fluoride for long-term caries prevention in children. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Fluoride toothpaste has strong evidence for long-term caries prevention. • Fluoride-free alternatives are increasingly used, but existing evidence is largely based on surrogate or short-term outcomes. WHAT IS NEW: • Across formulations, observed effects are driven more by study design, delivery context, and outcome selection than by specific ingredients. • No fluoride-free category shows equivalent clinical evidence to fluoride for long-term caries prevention, although hydroxyapatite demonstrates relatively more consistent, yet still limited data.
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.