Question · asked by 1 review
Fluoride mouthrinse (any fluoride agent, concentration, volume, frequency or technique; swished and expectorated, not swallowed) vs placebo or no treatment: Caries increment on permanent whole teeth (D(M)FT), prevented fraction
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fluoride mouthrinse (any fluoride agent, concentration, volume, frequency or technique; swished and expectorated, not swallowed) vs Placebo or no treatment Caries increment in permanent teeth: decayed, (missing) and filled teeth D(M)FT (prevented fraction) · Children or adolescents aged 16 years or younger at the start of the study · At least 1 year/school year Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes | PF 0.23 [0.18, 0.29] | 13 studies · 5105 participants | Moderate |
Fluoride mouthrinse (any fluoride agent, concentration, volume, frequency or technique; swished and expectorated, not swallowed) vs Placebo or no treatment Caries increment in permanent teeth: decayed, (missing) and filled teeth D(M)FT (prevented fraction) · Children or adolescents aged 16 years or younger at the start of the study · At least 1 year/school year Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents (2003) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD002284, superseded | PF 0.24 [0.18, 0.30] | 13 studies · 5105 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2016-04 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.