Fluorides combined with CPP-ACP vs Fluorides alone (monotherapy): Total lesion area divided by total surface area (visual)
Adding CPP-ACP to fluorides did not significantly change the lesion-area outcome for smooth-surface early caries lesions versus fluorides alone; not GRADE-rated.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fluorides combined with CPP-ACP vs Fluorides alone (monotherapy) Total lesion area divided by total surface area (visual) · Patients with early caries lesions in permanent teeth (non-fluoridated water area) · Post-treatment (8-24 weeks), In vivo clinical trial (human oral cavity; smooth-surface early caries lesions; visual measurement), Location of lesions: smooth surfaces Adding CPP-ACP to fluorides did not significantly change the lesion-area outcome for smooth-surface early caries lesions 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 4.37 [-0.51, 9.26] | 2 studies | 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 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) | 11 | Critically 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.
- Effectiveness of MI Paste Plus and PreviDent fluoride varnish for treatment of white spot lesions: a randomized controlled trial. · 2013 · included by 1 of these review
- Can white spot lesions be treated effectively? · 2012 · 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.