Question · asked by 1 review
Individually designed, patient-centred preventive programme: dietary counselling (snacking timing, regular meals, fermentable carbohydrates) plus toothbrushing counselling, delivered by trained dental hygienists (a multi-intervention) vs Basic prevention offered as standard in public dental clinics: Nibbling less than daily
- Population
- Children aged 11 to 12 years with at least one active initial caries lesion, screened in a town in Finland
- Intervention
- Individually designed, patient-centred preventive programme: dietary counselling (snacking timing, regular meals, fermentable carbohydrates) plus toothbrushing counselling, delivered by trained dental hygienists (a multi-intervention)
- Comparison
- Basic prevention offered as standard in public dental clinics
- Outcome
- Nibbling less than daily
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Individually designed, patient-centred preventive programme: dietary counselling (snacking timing, regular meals, fermentable carbohydrates) plus toothbrushing counselling, delivered by trained dental hygienists (a multi-intervention) vs Basic prevention offered as standard in public dental clinics Nibbling less than daily · Children aged 11 to 12 years with at least one active initial caries lesion, screened in a town in Finland · 2 to 4 years One‐to‐one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour (2012) · Cochrane All outcomes | Table 2: 52% (130) versus 53% (131) at follow-up (baseline 41% versus 44%). No significant change. | 1 study · 497 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| One‐to‐one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2012-01 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.