The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of Low and Standard Fluoride Toothpastes on Caries and Fluorosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Although the anti-caries effects of standard fluoride (F) toothpastes are well established, their use by preschoolers (2- to 5-year-olds) has given rise to concerns regarding the development of dental fluorosis. Thus, a widespread support of low F toothpastes has been observed. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of low (<600 ppm) and standard (1,000-1,500 ppm) F toothpastes on the prevention of caries in the primary dentition and aesthetically objectionable (moderate to severe) fluorosis in the permanent dentition. A systematic review of clinical trials and meta-analyses were carried out. Two examiners independently screened 1,932 records and read 159 potentially eligible full-text articles. Data regarding characteristics of participants, interventions, outcomes, length of follow-up and potential of bias were independently extracted by two examiners and disagreements were solved by consensus after consulting a third examiner. In order to assess the effects of low and standard F toothpastes on the proportion of children developing caries and fluorosis, pooled relative risks (RR) and associated 95% confidence intervals were estimated using a fixed and a random-effects model, respectively. Five clinical trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Low F toothpastes significantly increased the risk of caries in primary teeth [RR = 1.13 (1.07-1.20); 4,634 participants in three studies] and did not significantly decrease the risk of aesthetically objectionable fluorosis in the upper anterior permanent teeth [RR = 0.32 (0.03-2.97); 1,968 participants in two studies]. There is no evidence to support the use of low F toothpastes by preschoolers regarding caries and fluorosis prevention.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
The effect of fluoride toothpaste on caries control is concentration dependent.
“Models are widely used to evaluate the anti-caries potential of toothpastes; however, they should show dose-response effects because there is evidence that the effect of fluoride toothpaste on caries control is concentration dependent [14, 26].”
From Validation of a Cariogenic Biofilm Model to Evaluate the Effect of Fluoride on Enamel and Root Dentine Demineralization (2016) · cites this paper as [26]
Citations
Cites
Statistics Notes: Detecting skewness from summary information: Table 1
Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7066.1200 · Cited by 1,278
Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat.
Altman, D. G. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7168.1309 · Cited by 938
Sample Size Calculations for Cluster Randomised Trials
Campbell, M., Grimshaw, J., Steen, N., & Changing Professional Practice in Europe Group (EU BIOMED II Concerted Action) (2000) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/135581960000500105 · Cited by 298
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- 10.1159%2F000069022 · DOI
- 10.1177%2F154411130201300206 · DOI
- 10.1038%2Fsj.bdj.4800140a · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000073916 · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1600-0528.2010.00577.x · DOI
- 10.1080%2F000163598422956 · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1600-0528.2009.00507.x · DOI
- 10.1590%2FS0034-89102002000600009 · DOI
- 10.1177%2F154405910408301S26 · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1600-0528.2004.00136.x · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1600-0528.2004.00139.x · DOI
- 10.1177%2F154405910508401208 · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1752-7325.2007.00036.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177%2F154405910708600807 · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1600-0528.2007.00314.x · DOI
- 10.1007%2FBF03262679 · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000346006 · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1600-0528.2004.00164.x · DOI
- 10.1034%2Fj.1600-0528.2000.028005321.x · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000322132 · DOI
- 10.1136%2Fbmj.313.7048.36 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1159%2F000111749 · DOI
- 10.1177%2F154407370802000102 · DOI
- 10.1016%2Fj.jclinepi.2010.03.004 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1590%2FS1806-83242007000300008 · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000077769 · DOI
- 10.1034%2Fj.1600-0528.2002.300310.x · DOI
- 10.1590%2FS0102-311X2010000700025 · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1365-263X.2011.01115.x · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1600-0528.2004.00137.x · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1365-263X.1995.tb00154.x · DOI
- 10.1034%2Fj.1600-0528.2002.300110.x · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000088909 · DOI
- 10.1177%2F154405910808701105 · DOI
- 10.1080%2F00016350310007590 · DOI
- 10.1080%2F00016350600555537 · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000320364 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fernández, C. E., Tenuta, L. M. A., & Cury, J. A. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146478 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Santos, A. P. P., Oliveira, B. H., & Nadanovsky, P.
- Venue
- Caries Research
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 382-390
- ISSN
- 0008-6568
- 1421-976X
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 3
- 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