38% SDF + potassium iodide solution (applied annually) vs CPP-ACP: Remineralization/arrest of early enamel carious lesions
- Population
- Patients with early enamel carious lesions on permanent molars
- Intervention
- 38% SDF + potassium iodide solution (applied annually)
- Comparison
- CPP-ACP
- Outcome
- Remineralization/arrest of early enamel carious lesions
For early enamel lesions, annual SDF+KI was significantly less effective than twice-daily CPP-ACP (54.8% vs 100% arrested; p<0.001; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
38% SDF plus KI (annual) vs CPP-ACP (casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate, twice daily) Remineralization/arrest of early enamel carious lesions · Patients with early enamel carious lesions on permanent molars · 24 months, Outpatient clinic, Hamdi 2022 For early enamel lesions, annual SDF+KI was significantly less effective than twice-daily CPP-ACP (54.8% vs 100% arrested; p<0.001; ungraded). A systematic review on the effect of silver diamine fluoride for management of dental caries in permanent… (2023) All outcomes | Proportion of lesions arrested (%) 54.8 | 1 study · 45 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| A systematic review on the effect of silver diamine fluoride for management of dental caries in permanent teeth. 2023 All outcomes | December 2022 | 13 | Low / Critically Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- 38% SDF + potassium iodide solution (applied annually) vs Tricalcium silicate (TCS) paste (applied twice daily) · Patients with early enamel carious lesions on permanent molars · 1 review
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.