↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
584 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
605 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002278
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valeria CC Marinho, Julian Higgins, Stuart Logan, Aubrey Sheiham deceased

Abstract

Fluoride toothpastes have been widely used for over three decades and remain a benchmark intervention for the prevention of dental caries. To determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride toothpastes in the prevention of caries in children and to examine factors potentially modifying their effect. 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. Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials with blind outcome assessment, comparing fluoride toothpaste with placebo in children up to 16 years during at least one year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces (D(M)FS). 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 caries increments between the treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the 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 meta-regression analyses. Seventy-four studies were included. For the 70 that contributed data for meta-analysis (involving 42,300 children) the D(M)FS pooled PF was 24% (95% confidence interval (CI), 21 to 28%; p<0.0001). This means that 1.6 children need to brush with a fluoride toothpaste (rather than a non-fluoride toothpaste) over three years to prevent one D(M)FS in populations with caries increment of 2.6 D(M)FS per year. In populations with caries increment of 1.1 D(M)FS per year, 3.7 children will need to use a fluoride toothpaste for three years to avoid one D(M)FS. There was clear heterogeneity, confirmed statistically (p<0.0001). The effect of fluoride toothpaste increased with higher baseline levels of D(M)FS, higher fluoride concentration, higher frequency of use, and supervised brushing, but was not influenced by exposure to water fluoridation. There is little information concerning the deciduous dentition or adverse effects (fluorosis). Supported by more than half a century of research, the benefits of fluoride toothpastes are firmly established. Taken together, the trials are of relatively high quality, and provide clear evidence that fluoride toothpastes are efficacious in preventing caries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 605 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 596 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 122 20%
Student > Bachelor 85 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 9%
Student > Postgraduate 53 9%
Researcher 42 7%
Other 130 21%
Unknown 119 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 339 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 3%
Social Sciences 15 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 2%
Other 71 12%
Unknown 136 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 285. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2021.
All research outputs
#76,993
of 19,555,311 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#145
of 11,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#571
of 274,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 484 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,555,311 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 484 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.