Slow‐release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay
Información
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005101.pub3Copiar DOI
- Base de datos:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Versión publicada:
-
- 28 noviembre 2014see what's new
- Tipo:
-
- Intervention
- Etapa:
-
- Review
- Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
-
Grupo Cochrane de Salud oral
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cifras del artículo
Altmetric:
Citado por:
Autores
Contributions of authors
Brian Bonner (BB): literature searching.
BB and Lorna Dobbyn (LD): selection of potentially eligible studies.
BB, LD, and Smriti Khanna (SK): quality assessment.
Janc Clarkson (JC): revealed results and resolved conflicts by discussion.
All authors contributed to writing the review.
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
Scottish Executive Chief Scientist Office, UK.
External sources
-
No sources of support supplied
Declarations of interest
None known.
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge the help of Sylvia Bickley in the design of the search strategy and the Cochrane Oral Health Review Group Editorial Team.
Version history
| Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
| 2018 Mar 01 | Slow‐release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay | Review | Lee‐Yee Chong, Janet E Clarkson, Lorna Dobbyn‐Ross, Smriti Bhakta | |
| 2014 Nov 28 | Slow‐release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay | Review | Lee Yee Chong, Jan E Clarkson, Lorna Dobbyn‐Ross, Smriti Bhakta | |
| 2006 Oct 18 | Slow‐release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay | Review | Brian C Bonner, Jan E Clarkson, Lorna Dobbyn, Smriti Khanna | |
| 2005 Jan 24 | Slow‐release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay | Protocol | Brian C Bonner, Jan E Clarkson | |
Differences between protocol and review
In the 2013 update, the method section was edited to add clarity to the inclusion criteria and data analysis plans. The most important change was the addition of a minimum duration of study or intervention (one year).
Keywords
MeSH
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords
Medical Subject Headings Check Words
Child; Humans;
PICO
Comparison 1 Slow‐release fluoride device versus control, Outcome 1 Change of caries (increase in decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT)) at 2 years compared to baseline.
Comparison 1 Slow‐release fluoride device versus control, Outcome 2 Change of caries (increase in decayed, missing, and filled surfaces (DMFS)) at 2 years compared to baseline.
| Slow‐release fluoride devices compared with control for the control of dental decay | ||||||
| Patient or population: children with high risk of dental decay Settings: low water fluoride level area, inner city school Intervention: slow‐release fluoride devices Comparison: control | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect | No of Participants | Quality of the evidence | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Slow‐release fluoride device | |||||
| Increase in DMFT at 2 years compared with baseline (DMFT scale ranged from 0 to 32) | The mean was 0.91 (SD 1.36) | The mean was | Not applicable | 63 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | ‐ |
| Increase in DMFS at 2 years compared with baseline (DMFS scale ranged from 0 to 128) | The mean was 1.81 (SD 3.28) | The mean was | Not applicable | 63 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | ‐ |
| Progression of caries lesion through enamel or into dentine | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | No evidence found |
| Dental pain due to decay | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | No evidence found | |
| Harms of slow‐release fluoride devices | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 132 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low1,2 | Study reported that no irritations or other harms were reported |
| Participant satisfaction | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | No RCT evidence found |
| Retention of slow‐release fluoride devices | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 132 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | Only 63/132 (47.7%) children who were still available at 2‐year follow‐up had the devices intact |
| *As there was only 1 included study, the mean values in the control group was used as the assumed risk. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | ||||||
| 1. Quality of evidence was affected by serious attrition bias (only 36% of participants randomised were included in analysis), relatively small overall sample size and evidence was only obtained from a specific group of participants (children with high risk of caries, in an area with low levels of fluoride in tap water). 2. Unclear how reports about harms were obtained. No suggestions from the report that these were systematically checked. | ||||||
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 Change of caries (increase in decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT)) at 2 years compared to baseline Show forest plot | 1 | 63 | Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) | ‐0.72 [‐1.23, ‐0.21] |
| 2 Change of caries (increase in decayed, missing, and filled surfaces (DMFS)) at 2 years compared to baseline Show forest plot | 1 | 63 | Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) | ‐1.52 [‐2.68, ‐0.36] |
