↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Slow-release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

2 blogs
45 tweeters
3 Facebook pages
2 Wikipedia pages
1 Google+ user


3 Dimensions

Readers on

152 Mendeley
Slow-release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005101.pub4
Pubmed ID

Lee-Yee Chong, Janet E Clarkson, Lorna Dobbyn-Ross, Smriti Bhakta


Slow-release fluoride devices have been investigated as a potentially cost-effective method of reducing dental caries in people with high risk of disease. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2006 and previously updated in 2014. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of slow-release fluoride devices on preventing, arresting, or reversing the progression of carious lesions on all surface types of primary (deciduous) and permanent teeth. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 23 January 2018); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 23 January 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 23 January 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 23 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (23 January 2018). We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing slow-release fluoride devices with an alternative fluoride treatment, placebo, or no intervention in all age groups. The main outcome measures sought were changes in numbers of decayed, missing, and filled teeth or surfaces (DMFT/DMFS in permanent teeth or dmft/dmfs in primary teeth), and progression of carious lesions through enamel and into dentine. We conducted data collection and analysis using standard Cochrane review methods. At least two review authors independently performed all the key steps in the review such as screening of abstracts, application of inclusion criteria, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We resolved discrepancies through discussions or arbitration by a third or fourth review author. We found no evidence comparing slow-release fluoride devices against other types of fluoride therapy.We found only one double-blind RCT involving 174 children comparing a slow-release fluoride device (glass beads with fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth) against control (glass beads without fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth). This study was assessed to be at high risk of bias. The study recruited children from seven schools in an area of deprivation that had low levels of fluoride in the water. The mean age at the beginning of the study was 8.8 years and at the termination was 10.9 years. DMFT in permanent teeth or dmft in primary teeth was greater than one at the start of the study and greater than one million colony-forming units of Streptococcus mutans per millilitre of saliva.Although 132 children were still included in the trial at the two-year completion point, examination and statistical analysis was performed on only the 63 children (31 in intervention group, 32 in control group) who had retained the beads (retention rate was 47.7% at 2 years). Among these 63 children, caries increment was reported to be statistically significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (DMFT: mean difference -0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.21; DMFS: mean difference -1.52, 95% CI -2.68 to -0.36 (very low-quality evidence)). Although this difference was clinically significant, it only holds true for those children who maintain the fluoride beads; over 50% of children did not retain the beads.Harms were not reported within the trial report. Evidence for other outcomes sought in this review (progression to of caries lesion, dental pain, healthcare utilisation data) were also not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine the caries-inhibiting effect of slow-release fluoride glass beads. The body of evidence available is of very low quality and there is a potential overestimation of benefit to the average child. The applicability of the findings to the wider population is unclear; the study had included children from a deprived area that had low levels of fluoride in drinking water, and were considered at high risk of caries. In addition, the evidence was only obtained from children who still had the bead attached at 2 years (48% of all available children); children who had lost their slow-release fluoride devices earlier might not have benefited as much from the devices.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 152 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Researcher 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 31 20%
Unknown 44 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 54 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 10 February 2021.
All research outputs
of 17,697,618 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 284,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,697,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 284,378 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.