Question · asked by 1 review
Fluoride toothpaste vs Non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste: Oral soft tissue lesions (adverse effect)
- Population
- Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
- Intervention
- Fluoride toothpaste
- Comparison
- Non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste
- Outcome
- Oral soft tissue lesions (adverse effect)
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fluoride toothpaste vs Placebo (non-fluoride) toothpaste Oral soft tissue lesions (adverse effect) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less · At least 1 year Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents (2003) · Cochrane All outcomes | Oral soft tissue lesions reported in 3 trials, none of which with complete or useable data; all three stated "no lesions attributable to product use were noted". | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2003 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2001-10 | 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.