Fluorides combined with CPP-ACP vs Fluorides alone (monotherapy): Visual inspection scores
Two trials reported visual inspection scores but could not be pooled (different criteria, missing standard deviations) and gave inconsistent findings, so no quantitative conclusion could be drawn.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fluorides combined with CPP-ACP vs Fluorides alone (monotherapy) Visual inspection scores · Patients with early caries lesions in permanent teeth (non-fluoridated water area) · Post-treatment (4-24 weeks), In vivo clinical trial (human oral cavity) Two trials reported visual inspection scores but could not be pooled (different criteria, missing standard deviations) and gave inconsistent findings, so no quantitative conclusion could be drawn. Efficacy of fluorides and CPP-ACP vs fluorides monotherapy on early caries lesions: A systematic review and… (2018) All outcomes | Not pooled (2 trials, different scoring criteria, standard deviations not reported). Brochner 2011: no significant difference; Andersson 2007: more lesions became invisible with fluorides + CPP-ACP. | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy of fluorides and CPP-ACP vs fluorides monotherapy on early caries lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2018 All outcomes | August 2017 (databases searched from January 1990 to August 2017) | 11 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.