Fluoride-free nano-/micro-hydroxyapatite (nHA) dentifrice vs Control (regular fluoride) dentifrice: Caries lesion initiation/progression (ICDAS score, laser fluorescence/DIAGNOdent, photographic pixels, enamel acid resistance)
No meta-analysis was possible for the 5 in vivo RCTs (high heterogeneity); narratively nHA showed generally no significant difference versus fluoridated dentifrice, and the evidence was not graded (ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fluoride-free nano-/micro-hydroxyapatite (nHA) dentifrice vs Fluoride-containing (fluoridated) dentifrice control Caries lesion initiation/progression (ICDAS score, laser fluorescence/DIAGNOdent, photographic pixels, enamel acid resistance) · Patients (children and adults, age 3-40 years) with initial enamel caries lesions (non-orthodontic and orthodontic) · Median follow-up 6 months (range 6-12 months), In vivo (clinical); non-orthodontic and orthodontic patients No meta-analysis was possible for the 5 in vivo RCTs (high heterogeneity); narratively nHA showed generally no significant difference versus fluoridated dentifrice, and the evidence was not graded (ungraded). Efficacy of nano-hydroxyapatite on caries prevention-a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) All outcomes | No meta-analysis was performed for the in vivo studies owing to high heterogeneity (population, control group, outcomes, follow-up periods, risk of bias) and differing statistical designs (e.g., non-inferiority);… | 5 studies · 420 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy of nano-hydroxyapatite on caries prevention-a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2022 All outcomes | Databases searched up to 30 April 2021 (CENTRAL up to 30 Apr 2021; MEDLINE/PubMed 1946 to 30 Apr 2021; Ovid EMBASE 1947 to 30 Apr 2021) | 10 | 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.
- Impact of a toothpaste with microcrystalline hydroxyapatite on the occurrence of early childhood caries: a 1-year randomized clinical trial. · 2021 · included by 1 of these review
- Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Remineralizing Effect of Prophylactic Toothpaste Promoting Brushite Formation: A Randomized… · 2020 · included by 1 of these review
- Effect of different remineralizing agents on the initial carious lesions - A comparative study. · 2020 · included by 1 of these review
- Comparison of the effects of toothpastes containing nanohydroxyapatite and fluoride on white spot lesions in orthodontic patients: A… · 2020 · included by 1 of these review
- Impact of a non-fluoridated microcrystalline hydroxyapatite dentifrice on enamel caries progression in highly caries-susceptible… · 2019 · 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.