Question · asked by 1 review
Slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) vs placebo or usual care: Retention of slow-release fluoride devices (devices staying intact)
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) vs Placebo or usual care (control) Retention of slow-release fluoride devices (devices staying intact) · Children with high risk of dental decay · 2 years Slow‐release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | 132 (1 study); very low; Only 63/132 (47.7%) children who were still available at 2-year follow-up had the devices intact | 1 study · 132 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Slow‐release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2018-01 | 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.