CPP-ACP vs No active treatment (control): Average enamel surface roughness
In vitro, CPP-ACP markedly reduced enamel surface roughness versus control (SMD -8.21, 95% CI -10.37 to -6.04; ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
CPP-ACP agent (e.g., GC Tooth Mousse) vs Control (no treatment / negative control) Average enamel surface roughness · Extracted human teeth with early/artificial enamel lesions (in vitro) · 24 hours to 28 days, In vitro (extracted human teeth) In vitro, CPP-ACP markedly reduced enamel surface roughness versus control (SMD -8.21, 95% CI -10.37 to -6.04; ungraded). Evaluation of the efficacy of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate on remineralization of white… (2019) All outcomes | SMD -8.21 [-10.37, -6.04] | 3 studies · 56 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of the efficacy of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate on remineralization of white spot lesions in vitro and… 2019 All outcomes | May 20, 2019 | 12 | 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.
- Efficacy of calcium‐ and fluoride‐containing materials for the remineralization of primary teeth with early enamel lesion · 2015 · included by 1 of these review
- Casein phosphopeptide–amorphous calcium phosphate remineralization of primary teeth early enamel lesions · 2014 · included by 1 of these review
- Protective effect on enamel demineralization of a CPP–ACP paste: an AFM in vitro study · 2009 · 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.