Question · asked by 1 review

Fluorides combined with CPP-ACP vs Fluorides alone (monotherapy): Laser fluorescence (LF) change

For occlusal early caries lesions, adding CPP-ACP to fluorides produced significantly greater laser-fluorescence improvement than fluorides alone (favors the combination); not GRADE-rated.

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Fluorides combined with CPP-ACP vs Fluorides alone (monotherapy)
Laser fluorescence (LF) change · Patients with early caries lesions in permanent teeth (non-fluoridated water area) · Post-treatment (3-12 weeks), In vivo clinical trial (human oral cavity; occlusal early caries lesions), Location of lesions: occlusal surfaces
For occlusal early caries lesions, adding CPP-ACP to fluorides produced significantly greater laser-fluorescence improvement than fluorides alone (favors the combination); not GRADE-rated.
Efficacy of fluorides and CPP-ACP vs fluorides monotherapy on early caries lesions: A systematic review and… (2018) All outcomes
MD -21.02 [-27.94, -14.10]3 studiesGRADE not reported
Fluorides combined with CPP-ACP vs Fluorides alone (monotherapy)
Laser fluorescence (LF) change · Patients with early caries lesions in permanent teeth (non-fluoridated water area) · Post-treatment (12-24 weeks), In vivo clinical trial (human oral cavity; smooth-surface early caries lesions), Location of lesions: smooth surfaces
For smooth-surface early caries lesions, adding CPP-ACP to fluorides did not significantly change laser-fluorescence outcomes versus fluorides alone; not GRADE-rated.
Efficacy of fluorides and CPP-ACP vs fluorides monotherapy on early caries lesions: A systematic review and… (2018) All outcomes
MD -13.90 [-39.25, 11.46]4 studiesGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Efficacy of fluorides and CPP-ACP vs fluorides monotherapy on early caries lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
2018 All outcomes
August 2017 (databases searched from January 1990 to August 2017)11Critically 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.

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.