Effective use of self-care fluoride administration in Asia.

The caries-preventive benefits of fluoride are generally accepted by dental researchers and practicing professionals worldwide. The benefits of fluoride toothpastes and mouthrinses have been supported by several high-quality systematic reviews. The formulation of a fluoride toothpaste and biological (salivary flow rate) and behavioral factors (brushing frequency, brushing time, post-brushing rinsing practices, timing of brushing, and amount of toothpaste applied) can influence anticaries efficacy. Fluoride mouthrinses have simpler formulations and can have better oral fluoride retention profiles than fluoride toothpastes, depending on post-brushing rinsing behaviors. Fluoride continues to be the mainstay of caries control; however, there is still the need to determine the most effective approach for fluoride utilization in children and adults who remain caries-active.

Cochrane reviews on the benefits/risks of fluoride toothpastes.

This concise review presents two Cochrane Reviews undertaken to determine: (1) the relative effectiveness of fluoride toothpastes of different concentrations in preventing dental caries in children and adolescents; and (2) the relationship between the use of topical fluorides in young children and their risk of developing dental fluorosis. To determine the relative effectiveness of fluoride toothpastes of different concentrations, we undertook a network meta-analysis utilizing both direct and indirect comparisons from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The review examining fluorosis included evidence from experimental and observational studies. The findings of the reviews confirm the benefits of using fluoride toothpaste, when compared with placebo, in preventing caries in children and adolescents, but only significantly for fluoride concentrations of 1000 ppm and above. The relative caries-preventive effects of fluoride toothpastes of different concentrations increase with higher fluoride concentration. However, there is weak, unreliable evidence that starting the use of fluoride toothpaste in children under 12 months of age may be associated with an increased risk of fluorosis. The decision of what fluoride levels to use for children under 6 years should be balanced between the risk of developing dental caries and that of mild fluorosis.

Systematic reviews of topical fluorides for dental caries: a review of reporting practice.

This paper aims to assess systematic reviews on the caries-preventive effect of topical fluorides, identifying key content and reporting quality issues to be considered by researchers planning a review in this area. Published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of any topical fluoride intervention for caries control were included. Relevant databases were searched (December 2009), along with reference lists of included publications. Thirty-eight reports were identified and assessed. A majority of these focused on the child/adolescent population, fluoride toothpastes, no treatment/placebo comparisons, and had caries increment as the main outcome. Complete reporting of eligibility criteria (PICOS) was uncommon, except in Cochrane reviews. Less than half reported searching multiple sources and only one third reported a search strategy. Duplicate study selection and data extraction was reported in 27 (71%) and 16 (42%) reviews, respectively; quality assessment of included studies was not reported in one third of the reviews. Meta-analysis was reported in 20 (52%) reviews, with six not reporting the methods of synthesis used, 17 formally assessing heterogeneity, and 12 reporting analyses for its exploration. This study shows that some content features have been covered more often than others in existing fluoride reviews, while some relevant features are yet to be addressed. Also, reporting of several methodological aspects are below an acceptable level, except for Cochrane reviews. Current reporting guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions (e.g. PRISMA) and sources of high-quality existing reviews (e.g. The Cochrane Library) should be closely followed to enhance the validity and relevance of future topical fluoride reviews.

Cochrane reviews of randomized trials of fluoride therapies for preventing dental caries.

AIM: To present the evidence summarized in the Cochrane fluoride reviews. STUDY DESIGN: An overview of the results of selected systematic reviews. METHODS: Relevant systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were identified by searching 'The Cochrane Library issue 4, 2008', using the terms 'Fluoride' and 'Caries'. Complete Cochrane reviews assessing the effectiveness of any fluoride-based intervention for preventing caries were selected, and their main features and findings were reviewed. RESULTS: 14 papers were identified of which 11 were relevant full-text reviews. The results were assessed of 7 reviews published from 2002 to 2004 concerning the relative effectiveness of 4 topical fluoride treatments (toothpastes, gels, varnishes and mouthrinses) in preventing caries in children and adolescents. Comparisons in these reviews were made against non-fluoride controls, against each other, and against different combinations. Findings from 4 reviews published between 2004 and 2006, assessing other fluoride modalities (slow release devices, milk), specific comparison/site (fluoride varnishes versus sealants in occlusal surfaces), and particular population and caries outcome (fluorides for white spot lesions in orthodontic patients) were also assessed. The 7 reviews confirm a clear and similar effectiveness of topical fluoride toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels and varnishes for preventing caries, and show that additional caries reduction can be expected when another topical fluoride is combined with fluoride toothpaste. Evidence is insufficient to confirm the effectiveness of slow release fluoride devices and fluoridated milk. The comparative effectiveness of other modes of delivering fluoride, such as to orthodontic patients is also as yet unclear. Fissure sealants appear more effective than fluoride varnish for preventing occlusal caries but the size of the difference is unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of topical fluorides are firmly established based on a sizeable body of evidence from randomized controlled trials. The size of the reductions in caries increment in both the permanent and the primary dentitions emphasizes the importance of including topical fluoride delivered through toothpastes, rinses, gels or varnishes in any caries preventive program. However, trials to discern potential adverse effects are required, and data on acceptability. Better quality research is needed to reach clearer conclusions on the effects of slow release fluoride devices, milk fluoridation, sealants in comparison with fluoride varnishes, and of different modes of delivering fluoride to orthodontic patients.

One topical fluoride (toothpastes, or mouthrinses, or gels, or varnishes) versus another for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Topical fluorides in the form of toothpaste, mouthrinse, varnish and gel are effective caries preventive measures. However, there is uncertainty about the relative value of these interventions. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of one form of topical fluoride intervention with another when used for the prevention of dental caries in children. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (May 2000), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2000), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2000), plus several other databases. We handsearched journals, reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials with blind outcome assessment, comparing fluoride varnish, gel, mouthrinse, or toothpaste with each other in children up to 16 years during at least 1 year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces (D(M)FS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion decisions, quality assessment and data extraction were duplicated in a random sample of one third of studies, and consensus achieved by discussion or a third party. Authors were contacted for missing data. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF) that is the difference in mean caries increments between the 'experimental' and 'control' groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. Random effects meta-analyses were performed where data could be pooled. MAIN RESULTS: There were 17 studies included, and 15 contributed data for the meta-analyses. Fluoride toothpaste was not significantly different from mouthrinse (pooled DMFS PF 0%; 95% CI, -18% to 19%; p = 0.94), or gel (pooled DMFS PF 0%; 95% CI, -21% to 21%; p = 1), or both gel and mouthrinse (pooled DMFS PF 1%; 95% CI, -13% to 14%; p = 0.94); heterogeneity was substantial. Results from the single trial comparing toothpaste with varnish (in deciduous teeth) were inconclusive (dfs PF 5%; CI not obtainable). The pooled results from the comparisons of fluoride varnish with mouthrinse was a non-significant difference favouring varnish (DMFS PF 10%; 95% CI, -12% to 32%; p = 0.40), but this result was not robust to sensitivity analysis performed, and heterogeneity was considerable. Results from the single trial comparing varnish with gel (14%, 95% CI, -12% to 40%; p = 0.30) and the single trial comparing gel with mouthrinse (-14% DMFS PF; 95% CI, -40% to 12%; p = 0.30) were inconclusive (favoured varnish and mouthrinse respectively). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Fluoride toothpastes in comparison to mouthrinses or gels appear to have a similar degree of effectiveness for the prevention of dental caries in children. There is no clear suggestion that fluoride varnish is more effective than mouthrinses and the evidence for the comparative effectiveness of fluoride varnishes and gels, and mouthrinses and gels is inconclusive. No conclusions about adverse effects could be reached, because no data were reported on in the trials. Acceptance is likely to be greater for fluoride toothpaste.

Combinations of topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels, varnishes) versus single topical fluoride for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Topical fluoride therapy (TFT) in the form of toothpastes, mouthrinses, varnishes and gels are effective caries preventive measures. However, there is uncertainty about the relative value of these interventions when used together. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of two TFT modalities combined with one of them alone (mainly toothpaste) when used for the prevention of dental caries in children. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (May 2000), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2000), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2000), plus several other databases. We handsearched journals, reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials with blind outcome assessment, comparing fluoride varnish, gel, mouthrinse, or toothpaste in combination with each other in children up to 16 years during at least 1 year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces (D(M)FS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion decisions, quality assessment and data extraction were duplicated in a random sample of one third of studies, and consensus achieved by discussion or a third party. Authors were contacted for missing data. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF) that is the difference in mean caries increments between the 'treatment' and 'control' groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. Random effects meta-analyses were performed where data could be pooled. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven of the 12 included studies contributed data for the meta-analyses. For the nine trials that provided data for the main meta-analysis on the effect of fluoride mouthrinses, gels or varnishes used in combination with toothpaste (involving 4026 children) the D(M)FS pooled PF was 10% (95% CI, 2% to 17%; p = 0.01) in favour of the combined regimens. Heterogeneity was not substantial in these results (I square = 32%). The separate meta-analyses of fluoride gel or mouthrinse combined with toothpaste versus toothpaste alone favour the combined regimens, but differences were not statistically significant; the significant difference in favour of the combined use of fluoride varnish and toothpaste accrues from a very small trial and appears likely to be a spurious result. Not all other combinations of possible practical value were tested in the included studies. The only other statistically significant result was in favour of the combined use of fluoride gel and mouthrinse in comparison to gel alone (pooled DMFS PF 23%; 95% CI, 4% to 43%; p = 0.02), based on two trials. No other combinations of TFT were consistently superior to a single TFT. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Topical fluorides (mouthrinses, gels, or varnishes) used in addition to fluoride toothpaste achieve a modest reduction in caries compared to toothpaste used alone. No conclusions about any adverse effects could be reached, because data were scarcely reported in the trials.

Topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels or varnishes) for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Topical fluoride therapy (TFT) in the form of varnish, gel, mouthrinse or toothpaste has been used extensively as a caries-preventive intervention for over three decades. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride varnishes, gels, mouthrinses, and toothpastes in the prevention of dental caries in children and to examine factors potentially modifying their effect. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (May 2000), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2000), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2000), plus several other databases. We handsearched journals, reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials with blind outcome assessment, comparing fluoride varnish, gel, mouthrinse, or toothpaste with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years during at least 1 year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces (D(M)FS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion decisions, quality assessment and data extraction were duplicated in a random sample of one third of studies, and consensus achieved by discussion or a third party. Authors were contacted for missing data. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF) that is the difference in mean caries increments between the treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. Random effects meta-analyses were performed where data could be pooled. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random effects metaregression analyses. MAIN RESULTS: There were 144 studies included. For the 133 that contributed data for meta-analysis (involving 65,169 children) the D(M)FS pooled prevented fraction estimate was 26% (95% CI, 24% to 29%; p < 0.0001). There was substantial heterogeneity, confirmed statistically (p < 0.0001), but the direction of effect was consistent. The effect of topical fluoride varied according to type of control group used, type of TFT used, mode/setting of TFT use, initial caries levels and intensity of TFT application, but was not influenced by exposure to water fluoridation or other fluoride sources. D(M)FS PF was on average 14% (95% CI, 5% to 23%; p = 0.002) higher in non-placebo controlled trials, 14% (95% CI, 2% to 26%; p = 0.25) higher in fluoride varnish trials compared with all others, and 10% (95% CI, -17% to -3%; p = 0.003) lower in trials of unsupervised home use compared with self applied supervised and operator-applied. There was a 0.7% increase in the PF per unit increase in baseline caries (95% CI, 0.2% to 1.2%; p = 0.004). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of topical fluorides have been firmly established on a sizeable body of evidence from randomized controlled trials. While the formal examination of sources of heterogeneity between studies has been important in the overall conclusions reached, these should be interpreted with caution. We were unable to reach definite conclusions about any adverse effects that might result from the use of topical fluorides, because data reported in the trials are scarce.

Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Fluoride mouthrinses have been used extensively as a caries-preventive intervention in school-based programmes and individually at home. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride mouthrinses in the prevention of dental caries in children and to examine factors potentially modifying their effect. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (May 2000), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2000), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2000), plus several other databases. We handsearched journals, reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials with blind outcome assessment, comparing fluoride mouthrinse with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years during at least 1 year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces (D(M)FS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion decisions, quality assessment and data extraction were duplicated in a random sample of one third of studies, and consensus achieved by discussion or a third party. Authors were contacted for missing data. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF) that is the difference in mean caries increments between the treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. Random effects meta-analyses were performed where data could be pooled. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random effects metaregression analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included. For the 34 that contributed data for meta-analysis (involving 14,600 children) the D(M)FS pooled PF was 26% (95% confidence interval (CI), 23% to 30%; p < 0.0001). Heterogeneity was not substantial, but confirmed statistically (p = 0.008). No significant association between estimates of D(M)FS prevented fractions and baseline caries severity, background exposure to fluorides, rinsing frequency and fluoride concentration was found in metaregression analyses. A funnel plot of the 34 studies indicated no relationship between prevented fraction and study precision. There is little information concerning possible adverse effects or acceptability of treatment in the included trials. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that the supervised regular use of fluoride mouthrinse at two main strengths and rinsing frequencies is associated with a clear reduction in caries increment in children. In populations with caries increment of 0.25 D(M)FS per year, 16 children will need to use a fluoride mouthrinse (rather than a non-fluoride rinse) to avoid one D(M)FS; in populations with a caries increment of 2.14 D(M)FS per year, 2 children will need to rinse to avoid one D(M)FS. There is a need for complete reporting of side effects and acceptability data in fluoride mouthrinse trials.