Cited by 49

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Anti-Caries Effect of Arginine-Containing Formulations in vivo: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Li, Jialing, Huang, Ziwei, Mei, Li, Li, Guifeng, Li, Huang·2015·Caries Research

Abstract

Objective: To assess the anti-caries effect of arginine-containing formulations in vivo on caries lesions compared with fluorides or placebo. Methods: Randomized or quasi-randomized human clinical trials wherein arginine was delivered by any method were considered. The MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases were searched to identify relevant articles published up to December 2014. Grey literature was also searched. Two authors performed data extraction independently and in duplicate using data collection forms. Each included study was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Results: Of the 470 studies screened, 31 full articles were scrutinized and assessed for eligibility. Ten studies (n = 15,546 participants) were selected for final inclusion. The meta-analysis results (n = 7 studies) demonstrated a synergistic effect of arginine when used in conjunction with fluoride on early coronal and root caries compared with placebo or fluoride alone. No specific side effects related to arginine usage were identified. Conclusions: When used in combination with a calcium compound and fluoride, arginine potentially provides a superior anti-caries effect compared with matched formulations of fluoride alone. However, the level of evidence was downgraded because of risks of bias and potential publication bias. In the future, more high quality, non-industry-supported clinical studies in this research area are required before any definitive recommendations can be made.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000435894

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.013 · DOI
  2. 10.1001/jama.289.4.454 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.4190 · DOI
  4. 10.1177/154411130201300203 · DOI
  5. 10.1159/000094279 · DOI
  6. 10.1136/bmj.328.7441.654 · DOI
  7. 10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.04.002 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.04.002 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30617.x · DOI
  11. 10.1177/08959374970110041901 · DOI
  12. 10.1002/9780470712184.ch5 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/0003-9969(83)90055-9 · DOI
  14. 10.1177/00220345820610100601 · DOI
  15. 10.1159/000353183 · DOI
  16. 10.1038/ijos.2012.54 · DOI
  17. 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1171 · DOI
  19. 10.1159/000128561 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/j.1399-302X.2008.00477.x · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0343 · DOI
  22. 10.1922/CDH_3474Petersen · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.06.001 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.04.003 · DOI
  25. 10.1159/000047426 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.04.006 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.04.005 · DOI
  28. 10.1177/154405910408301S02 · DOI
  29. 10.1038/nri1857 · DOI
  30. 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1997.tb00231.x · DOI
  31. 10.1016/S0003-9969(96)00044-1 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/0003-9969(89)90045-9 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.04.004 · DOI
  34. 10.1159/000049104 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 49

Metadata

Authors
Li, J., Huang, Z., Mei, L., Li, G., & Li, H.
Venue
Caries Research
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2015
Volume
49
Issue
6
Pages
606-617
ISSN
  • 0008-6568
  • 1421-976X
Cited by
49
References
4
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