Question · asked by 1 review

Ate or licked fluoride toothpaste vs Did not eat or lick fluoride toothpaste: Fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth)

Population
Children exposed to topical fluoride when under 6 years old; fluorosis assessed in permanent teeth at 6 to 18 years
Intervention
Ate or licked fluoride toothpaste
Comparison
Did not eat or lick fluoride toothpaste
Outcome
Fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth)

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Ate or licked fluoride toothpaste vs Did not eat or lick fluoride toothpaste
Fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) · Children exposed to topical fluoride when under 6 years old; fluorosis assessed in permanent teeth at 6 to 18 years · Fluorosis assessed when most permanent teeth of interest had erupted (6 to 18 years)
Topical fluoride as a cause of dental fluorosis in children (2024) · Cochrane All outcomes
Nine studies investigated whether children ate or licked toothpaste; measurement subjective so not meta-analyzed (Table 1). Findings mixed: some studies found no significant difference; others (e.g. Celeste 2016 OR up…9 studiesGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Topical fluoride as a cause of dental fluorosis in children
2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
2022-07Not listedNot 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.