Question · asked by 1 review
Toothpaste with a plaque-disclosing agent vs Conventional toothpaste: Plaque
- Population
- Children aged 7 to 13 years with Down syndrome (mild to moderate ID); setting residential
- Intervention
- Toothpaste with a plaque-disclosing agent
- Comparison
- Conventional toothpaste
- Outcome
- Plaque
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Toothpaste with a plaque-disclosing agent vs Conventional toothpaste Plaque (short term) · Children aged 7 to 13 years with Down syndrome (mild to moderate ID); setting residential · Short term (<6 weeks) Oral hygiene interventions for people with intellectual disabilities (2019) · Cochrane All outcomes | Simplified Green & Vermillion Oral Hygiene Index (plaque), mean 10 days; percent mean difference 65 (intervention) vs 15 (control), P<0.0001 favouring the disclosing-agent toothpaste; 40 participants (SoF states 80,… | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral hygiene interventions for people with intellectual disabilities 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2019-02 | Not listed | Not 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.