Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42505698›Full record

ReviewDentistry journal2026

The Cariostatic Mechanisms of Fluoride-An Updated Review.

Ivana Šutej, Krešimir Bašić, Kristina Peroš

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Dentistry journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ivana ŠutejSchool of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0001-7654-0079
Krešimir BašićSchool of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-9854-5708
Kristina PerošSchool of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-0797-9587

Funding

European Commission SFZG-07-2025_LIPOR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fluoride remains the keystone of evidence-based caries prevention by stabilizing the mineral balance at the tooth-biofilm-saliva interface. Contemporary understanding emphasizes a predominantly post-eruptive, topical mode of action where fluoride inhibits demineralization and accelerates remineralization. This interfacial catalysis is reinforced by pH-responsive calcium-fluoride-like reservoirs that release fluoride during acid challenges. While community water fluoridation confers population-level reductions, the most effective approach is sustaining low-level fluoride in the biofilm environment. Evidence confirms that toothpastes with 1000-1500 ppm fluoride provide a dose-response benefit in children, while 5000 ppm concentrations are indicated for high-risk scenarios such as root caries and xerostomia. Beyond physicochemical effects, fluoride modulates the oral microbiome by inhibiting bacterial enzymes and proton pumps, shifting community function toward a health-associated state without reducing overall diversity. In restorative dentistry, glass ionomer cements offer superior preventive effects against secondary caries compared to amalgam; however, marginal integrity, adhesive performance, and clinical technique, rather than fluoride release alone, remain the primary determinants of success. Despite well-known risks associated with high systemic intake, such as fluorosis, current evidence does not indicate genotoxic or adverse microbiome effects in humans from routine topical use of standard fluoride products at recommended preventive concentrations. Overall, fluoride's cariostatic value rests on frequent, low-level exposures that maintain tissues in a repair-favoring state.

Indexed as

cariostatic mechanismsfluorideremineralization

Identifiers

PMID42505698
PMCPMC13407426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.