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

Increase in DMFT at 2 years compared with baseline

(DMFT scale ranged from 0 to 32)

Not applicable

63 (1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low¹

‐

Increase in DMFS at 2 years compared with baseline

(DMFS scale ranged from 0 to 128)

Not applicable

63 (1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low¹

‐

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 low^{1, 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).
CI: confidence interval; DMFT: decayed, missing, and filled permanent teeth; DMFS: decayed, missing, and filled permanent surfaces; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SD: standard deviation.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.