Ongoing BBTD Prevention Program vs BBTD Prevention Program discontinued in 1989: Baby bottle tooth decay prevalence
- Population
- Alaska Native and American Indian Head Start children
- Intervention
- Ongoing BBTD Prevention Program
- Comparison
- BBTD Prevention Program discontinued in 1989
- Outcome
- Baby bottle tooth decay prevalence
Sites discontinuing the prevention program had a non-significant 15% reduction in tooth decay rate, without a GRADE rating.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Ongoing BBTD Prevention Program vs BBTD Prevention Program discontinued in 1989 Baby bottle tooth decay prevalence · Alaska Native and American Indian Head Start children · 1986 to 1994, Alaska Native and American Indian Head Start sites, Program discontinued Sites discontinuing the prevention program had a non-significant 15% reduction in tooth decay rate, without a GRADE rating. Reducing Alaska Native paediatric oral health disparities: a systematic review of oral health interventions… (2013) All outcomes | Percent reduction in tooth decay rate 15 | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Ongoing BBTD Prevention Program vs BBTD Prevention Program discontinued in 1989 Baby bottle tooth decay prevalence · Alaska Native and American Indian Head Start children · 1986 to 1994, Alaska Native and American Indian Head Start sites, Program maintained Sites maintaining the prevention program had a 28% reduction in tooth decay rate, without a GRADE rating. Reducing Alaska Native paediatric oral health disparities: a systematic review of oral health interventions… (2013) All outcomes | Percent reduction in tooth decay rate 28 | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reducing Alaska Native paediatric oral health disparities: a systematic review of oral health interventions and a case study on multilevel… 2013 All outcomes | October 5, 2012 | 11 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- Bruerd, 1996 · included by 1 of these review
- Jolles et al. 2008 · included by 1 of these review
- Riedy 2010 · included by 1 of these 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.