Question · asked by 1 review

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs No fluoride supplement (placebo or no treatment): Fluorosis (adverse effect; % of children with fluorotic teeth, questionable to severe)

What each review found

Finding	Effect	Studies	GRADE certainty
Fluoride supplements (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gums) vs No fluoride supplement (placebo or no treatment) Fluorosis (adverse effect; % of children with fluorotic teeth, questionable to severe) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at baseline) · 55 months Fluoride supplements (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gums) for preventing dental caries in children (2011) · Cochrane All outcomes	% of children with fluorotic teeth (questionable to severe), follow-up 55 months. Assumed risk 32/212 = 15%; corresponding risk 40/202 = 20% (APF once a day) and 43/197 = 22% (APF twice a day). Relative effect: Not…	1 study · 611 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.