Question · asked by 1 review
Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs No fluoride supplement (placebo or no treatment): Caries in deciduous teeth (change in dmft)
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fluoride supplements (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gums) vs No fluoride supplement (placebo or no treatment) Caries increment in deciduous teeth (dmft) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at baseline) · 24-36 months Fluoride supplements (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gums) for preventing dental caries in children (2011) · Cochrane All outcomes | PF 0.46 [0.08, 0.83] | 2 studies · 696 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fluoride supplements (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gums) for preventing dental caries in children 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2011-10 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
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.