Cited by 328

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Reasons for the caries decline: what do the experts believe?

Bratthall, Douglas, Hänsel‐Petersson, Gunnel, Sundberg, Hans·1996·European Journal of Oral Sciences

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to describe what experts of today believe are the main reasons explaining the caries decline seen in many westernized countries over the past 3 decades. We have collected the views of a number of international experts, trying to answer the specific question “What are the main reasons why 20‐25‐year‐old persons have less caries nowadays, compared to 30 years ago?”. A questionnaire was mailed to 55 experts with a number of thinkable explanations to be scored according to a predetermined scale. The 25 items were divided into main groups under the heading of diet, fluorides. plaque, saliva, dentist/dental materials and other factors. The experts were asked to think of a specific country or area, and also to specify whether the chosen area had water fluoridation or not. The main finding of our study, based on a 95% response rate, was that there is a very large variation in how the experts graded the impact of various possible factors. For the use of fluoride toothpaste, there was a clear agreement of a definite positive effect.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1996.tb00104.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bratthall, D., Hänsel‐Petersson, G., & Sundberg, H.
Venue
European Journal of Oral Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-08
Volume
104
Issue
4
Pages
416-422
ISSN
  • 0909-8836
  • 1600-0722
Cited by
328
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review