Abstract
Objective: To assess whether professional fluoride application (PFA) used in addition to regular fluoride toothpaste (RFT, ≥ 1,000 ppm) is more effective than RFT alone in children.
Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and CENTRAL databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of RFT+PFA and RFT alone were included. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were performed. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
Results: A total of 2,729 records were identified from electronic and manual searches, which were screened by two reviewers independently and in duplicate. Six RCTs (5,034 participants) were included, of which four had high risk of bias and two had unclear risk of bias. The PFA used in all these trials was fluoride varnish (FV). In meta-analyses, no significant difference was observed between participants receiving FV+RFT and RFT alone of d(m/e)fs increment [mean difference (MD) -0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60 to 0.26, P = 0.43, I2 = 38%; 6 trials, 5,034 participants, moderate certainty evidence], incidence of caries [risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, P = 0.21, I2 = 41%; 4 trials, 4,487 participants, moderate certainty evidence], or changes in prevalence of caries (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01, P = 0.07, I2 = 0%, 4 trials, 4,189 participants, low certainty evidence).
Conclusions: Low to moderate certainty evidence suggests that FV does not have significant additional caries-preventive benefit for children (under 8 years old) when provided as an adjunct to daily tooth brushing with RFT (≥ 1,000 ppm). There is insufficient evidence regarding the additional benefit of other PFA interventions.
Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and CENTRAL databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of RFT+PFA and RFT alone were included. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were performed. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
Results: A total of 2,729 records were identified from electronic and manual searches, which were screened by two reviewers independently and in duplicate. Six RCTs (5,034 participants) were included, of which four had high risk of bias and two had unclear risk of bias. The PFA used in all these trials was fluoride varnish (FV). In meta-analyses, no significant difference was observed between participants receiving FV+RFT and RFT alone of d(m/e)fs increment [mean difference (MD) -0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60 to 0.26, P = 0.43, I2 = 38%; 6 trials, 5,034 participants, moderate certainty evidence], incidence of caries [risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, P = 0.21, I2 = 41%; 4 trials, 4,487 participants, moderate certainty evidence], or changes in prevalence of caries (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01, P = 0.07, I2 = 0%, 4 trials, 4,189 participants, low certainty evidence).
Conclusions: Low to moderate certainty evidence suggests that FV does not have significant additional caries-preventive benefit for children (under 8 years old) when provided as an adjunct to daily tooth brushing with RFT (≥ 1,000 ppm). There is insufficient evidence regarding the additional benefit of other PFA interventions.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Clinical Oral Investigations |
| Publication status | Accepted/In press - 22 Mar 2021 |