-
1
Topical fluoride for caries prevention
Full report of the updated clinical recommendations and
supporting systematic review
A Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs November 2013
This report is intended to assist practitioners with
decision-making about the use of topical-fluoride caries preventive
agents to prevent caries. The recommendations in this document are
not intended to define a standard of care and rather should be
integrated with a practitioners professional judgment and a
patients needs and preferences.
2103 ADA Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry. All rights
reserved.
Background. A panel of experts convened by the American Dental
Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs presents
evidence-based clinical recommendations on professionally-applied
and prescription-strength, home-use topical fluoride agents for
caries prevention. These recommendations are an update of the 2006
ADA recommendations regarding professionally applied topical
fluoride, and were developed by using a new process that includes
conducting the systematic review of primary studies.
Types of studies reviewed. The authors conducted a search of
MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for clinical trials of
professionally-applied and prescription-strength topical fluoride
agents including mouthrinses, varnishes, gels, foams, and pastes
with caries increment outcomes published in English through October
2012.
Results. The panel included 71 trials in 82 articles in its
review and assessed the efficacy of various topical fluoride
caries-preventive agents. The panel makes recommendations for
further research.
Clinical Implications. The panel recommends the following for
people at risk of developing dental caries: 2.26% fluoride varnish
or 1.23% fluoride (APF) gel, or a prescription-strength, home-use
0.5% fluoride gel or paste or 0.09% fluoride mouthrinse for 6 years
or older. Only 2.26% fluoride varnish is recommended for children
younger than 6 years. The strengths of the recommendations for the
recommended products varied from in favor to expert opinion for. As
part of the evidence-based approach to care, these clinical
recommendations should be integrated with the practitioners
professional judgment and the patients needs and preferences.
-
2
Authors and acknowledgments
Authors
Robert J. Weyant, DMD, DrPH; Sharon L. Tracy, PhD; Theresa
(Tracy) Anselmo, MPH, BSDH, RDH;
Eugenio D. Beltrn-Aguilar, DMD, MPH, MS, DrPH; Kevin J. Donly,
DDS, MS; William A. Frese, MD;
Philippe P. Hujoel, MSD, PhD; Timothy J. Iafolla, DMD, MPH;
William Kohn, DDS; Jayanth Kumar,
DDS, MDH; Steven M. Levy, DDS, MPH; Norman Tinanoff, DDS, MS; J.
Timothy Wright, DDS, MS;
Domenick Zero DDS, MS; Krishna Aravamudhan, BDS, MS; Julie
Frantsve-Hawley RDH, PhD; Daniel
M. Meyer, DDS; for the American Dental Association Council on
Scientific Affairs Expert Panel on
topical fluoride caries preventive agents
Robert J. Weyant is Professor and Chair, Department of Dental
Public Health, School of Dental Medicine,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. He was the chair of
the panel.
Sharon L. Tracy is Assistant Director, Center for Evidence-Based
Dentistry, Division of Science, American Dental
Association, Chicago. Address reprint requests to Dr. Tracy.
Theresa Anselmo is the Oral Health Program Manager, San Luis
Obispo Health Agency, San Luis Obispo, CA.
She represented the American Dental Hygienists Association on
the panel.
Eugenio D. Beltrn-Aguilar is Senior Epidemiologist and Advisor
to the Director, Division of Oral Health, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. He represented
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
on the panel.
Kevin J. Donly is Professor and Chair, Pediatric Dentistry at
the University of Texas Health Science Center San
Antonio, San Antonio, TX. He represented the American Academy of
Pediatric Dentistry on the panel.
William A. Frese is Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL. He
represented the American Academy of Pediatrics on the panel.
Philippe P. Hujoel is Professor of Periodontics, Department of
Dental Public Health Sciences, School of Dentistry,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Timothy J. Iafolla is a Public Health Analyst, Office of Science
Policy and Analysis, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial
Research (NIDCR), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. He
represented NIDCR on the panel.
William Kohn is vice president of dental science and policy,
Delta Dental Plans Association, Oak Park, IL.
Jayanth Kumar is Director, Oral Health Surveillance and
Research, Bureau of Dental Health, New York State Department of
Health, Albany, NY and Associate Professor, School of Public
Health, University at Albany.
Steven M. Levy is the Wright-Bush-Shreves Endowed Professor of
Research, Department of Preventive and
Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, and a professor,
Department of Epidemiology, College of Public
Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
-
3
Norman Tinanoff is Professor and Division Chief, Pediatric
Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland,
Baltimore, MD.
J. Timothy Wright is Professor and Chair, Department of
Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
Domenick Zero is Professor and Chair, Department of Preventive
and Community Dentistry, Director, Oral Health
Research Institute, Associate Dean for Research, Indiana
University, School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN.
Krishna Aravamudhan is Senior Manager, Office of Quality
Assessment and Improvement, Division of Dental
Practice, American Dental Association, 211 E. Chicago Ave.,
Chicago, IL 60611, e-mail
[email protected].
Julie Frantsve-Hawley is Senior Director, Center for
Evidence-based Dentistry, Division of Science, American
Dental Association, Chicago.
Daniel M. Meyer is Senior Vice President, Science/Professional
Affairs, American Dental Association, Chicago.
Acknowledgments
The panel would like to acknowledge the efforts of the following
individuals and their commitment in
helping complete this project.
Dr. Rocky Napier, ADA Council on Access, Prevention, and
Interprofessional Relations (CAPIR)
Liaison; Ms. Jane McGinley, Manager, Fluoridation and Preventive
Health Activities, ADA CAPIR Staff
Liaison; Dr. Douglas B. Torbush, ADA Council on Dental Practice
(CDP) Liaison; Dr. C. Rieger Wood,
ADA Council on Dental Benefit Programs (CDBP) Liaison; Dr.
William F. Robinson, ADA Council on
Dental Education and Licensure (CDEL) Liaison; Mr. Antanas
Rasymas, ADA Library; Mr. Tom Wall,
ADA Health Policy Resources Center; Mr. Sam Cole, ADA Health
Policy Resources Center.
The panel would like to thank the following individuals and
organizations whose valuable input during
external peer review helped improve this report: Dr. Elliot Abt,
Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical
Center; Dr. James Bader, University of North Carolina School of
Dentistry; Dr. William H. Bowen,
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry; Dr.
Albert Kingman, National Institute of
Dental and Craniofacial Research Center for Clinical Research;
Dr. Stephen J. Moss, New York
University College of Dentistry; Dr. David G. Pendrys,
University of Connecticut School of Dental
Medicine; Dr. Philip A. Swango, private dental consultant; Dr.
Gary M. Whitford, Georgia Health
Sciences University School of Dentistry; Dr. Helen Worthington,
Cochrane Oral Health Group,
University of Manchester School of Dentistry; the American
Association for Dental Research (AADR);
the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD); the American
Dental Hygienists Association
(ADHA); the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial
Research (NIDCR); the ADA Council on
Access, Prevention and Interprofessional Relations; the ADA
Council on Communications; the ADA
Council on Dental Practice.
-
4
The panel would like to thank the following individuals whose
valuable input helped improve Table 1
and the chairside guide: Dr. Paul Fischl, Dr. Bob Kaspers, Dr.
Dave Lewis, Dr. Dave McWhinnie, Dr.
Peter Neuhaus, and Dr. Maria Simon.
CDC Disclaimer: The work of the American Dental Association
Council on Scientific Affairs Expert
Panel on Topical Fluoride Agents was supported in part by the U.
S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Atlanta, GA. The findings and conclusions in this
report are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
Disclosures: Robert J. Weyant, DMD, DrPH did not report any
conflicts; Theresa (Tracy) Anselmo, MPH, BSDH, RDH served on the
Council on Public Health for the American Dental Hygienists'
Association ending in June 2012; Eugenio D. Beltrn-Aguilar, DMD,
MPH, MS,
DrPH is the Director of the American Board of Dental Public
Health; Kevin J. Donly, DDS, MS is a Pediatric Dentistry
Commissioner to the
ADA Commission on Dental Accreditation; William A. Frese, MD is
the American Academy of Pediatrics Section VII Oral Health liaison
and
also an advocate of oral health for the Illinois Oral Health
Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics; Philippe P. Hujoel,
MSD, PhD is a
Consultant to Delta Dental; Timothy Iafolla, DMD, MPH did not
report any disclosures; William Kohn, DDS holds material financial
interest in
a business that furnishes or is seeking to furnish goods or
services to the ADA and publically represents Delta Dental Plans
Association at
various meetings and events; Jayanth Kumar, DDS, MDH is the
ASTDD Perinatal Committee Chair (2010 to present); Steven M. Levy,
DDS,
MPH was the President of the American Board of Dental Public
Health during the development of this report; Norman Tinanoff, DDS,
MS is
on the Board of Trustees of the Dentaquest Foundation, an
organization with a mission to improve access to oral health care,
and receives no
compensation and occasionally does advocacy work for the
University of Maryland Dental Action Coalition regarding oral
health issues; J.
Timothy Wright, DDS, MS serves as a consultant to Edimer, which
is a company working on ectodermal dysplasia protein therapy;
Domenick Zero, DDS, MS serves on the Johnson & Johnson Oral
Care Advisory Board, receives compensation from Unilever for
moderating
a symposium at the 2011 IADR Annual Meeting and consults on an
ad hoc basis for GSK, Colgate, and P&G; Krishna Aravamudhan,
BDS,
MS; Sharon L. Tracy, PhD; Julie Frantsve-Hawley RDH, PhD; Daniel
M. Meyer, DDS have no disclosures.
Dr. Rocky Napier, ADA Council on Access, Prevention, and
Interprofessional Relations (CAPIR) Liaison is a private practice
dentist in Aiken,
South Carolina. He is also a member of the ADA Dental Practice
Council, a mentor/local facilitator for the SC AAPD/OHS Head Start
Dental
Home Initiative, a member of the Executive Board of the South
Carolina Society of Pediatric Dentistry and a Liaison to the South
Carolina
Dental Association. He is the Coordinator of the Aiken County
Schools Dental Screening Program, and has been involved in several
other
local dentistry-related organizations.
Dr. Douglas B. Torbush, ADA Council on Dental Practice Liaison
is a Board Member of Fisher Foundation, which provides
educational
loans/scholarships/grants to dental students and dental hygiene
students in Georgia. He is also involved with Georgia Dental
Associates
Legislative Awareness (LAW) Program, which lobbies Georgia
Representatives on behalf of the patients of Georgia.
Dr. C. Rieger Wood, ADA Council on Dental Benefit Programs
Liaison is the Dental Director of St. John Hospital Sapulpa and a
part-time
Clinical Instructor at the University of Oklahoma College of
Dentistry, Department of Operative Dentistry.
Dr. William F. Robinson, ADA Council on Dental Education and
Licensure Liaison is a consultant for the Florida Board of
Dentistry and the
Florida Department of Health.
Funding source: The ADA Council on Scientific Affairs
commissioned this work and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) partly funded this
project.
-
5
Introduction
...............................................................................................................................................................7
Clinical considerations and recommendations
....................................................................................................8
Balancing benefits with potential harms
...........................................................................................................9
Clinical Recommendations
..............................................................................................................................
10
Systematic review methods
................................................................................................................................
12
Literature search
...............................................................................................................................................
12
Critical appraisal of included studies
.............................................................................................................
14
Data synthesis and meta-analysis
.................................................................................................................
15
Process for developing evidence statements
...............................................................................................
18
Deviations from the protocol
...........................................................................................................................
19
Methods for developing clinical recommendations
..........................................................................................
19
Results
....................................................................................................................................................................
22
Varnish: 2.26% and 0.1% fluoride
..................................................................................................................
23
Varnish (2.26% fluoride)
..............................................................................................................................
23
Evidence profiles: 2.26% fluoride varnish
.................................................................................................
26
Varnish (0.1% fluoride)
................................................................................................................................
28
Evidence profiles: 0.1% fluoride varnish
...................................................................................................
30
APF gel (1.23%
fluoride)..................................................................................................................................
31
General summary of results
........................................................................................................................
31
Evidence statements
....................................................................................................................................
33
Evidence profiles: APF gel (1.23% fluoride)
.............................................................................................
34
APF foam (1.23% fluoride)
..............................................................................................................................
35
General summary of results
........................................................................................................................
35
Evidence statements
....................................................................................................................................
35
Evidence profiles: APF foam (1.23% fluoride)
.........................................................................................
35
Prophylaxis pastes containing fluoride
..........................................................................................................
37
General summary of results
........................................................................................................................
37
Evidence statements
....................................................................................................................................
38
Evidence profiles: prophylaxis pastes containing fluoride
......................................................................
38
-
6
Is prophylaxis prior to professional application of topical
fluoride necessary? ........................................ 40
General summary of results
........................................................................................................................
40
Evidence statements
....................................................................................................................................
41
Evidence profiles: Prophylaxis prior to APF gel (1.23% fluoride)
application ...................................... 41
Prescription-strength, home-use (0.5% fluoride) gel/paste agents
........................................................... 43
General summary of results
........................................................................................................................
43
Evidence statements
....................................................................................................................................
44
Evidence profiles: Prescription-strength, home-use (0.5%
fluoride) gel/paste agents ...................... 45
Prescription-strength, home-use (0.09% fluoride) mouthrinse
..................................................................
47
General summary of results
........................................................................................................................
47
Evidence statements
....................................................................................................................................
49
Evidence profiles: Prescription-strength, home-use (0.09%
fluoride) mouthrinse .............................. 50
Stannous fluoride
..............................................................................................................................................
51
Erupting teeth
....................................................................................................................................................
51
Systematic review conclusions
...........................................................................................................................
51
Limitations
..............................................................................................................................................................
52
Regarding the evidence
...................................................................................................................................
52
Regarding this systematic review
...................................................................................................................
53
Future research
.....................................................................................................................................................
53
References
.............................................................................................................................................................
55
Appendix 1 Clinical Recommendations detailed presentation
................................................................
61
Appendix 2 Literature searches
......................................................................................................................
62
Appendix 3 Excluded studies at full-text stage
.............................................................................................
64
Appendix 4 Study characteristics, bias scores, and outcomes data
tables .............................................. 81
Appendix 5 - Pragmatic calculations for interpreting summary
estimates clinically ................................. 118
-
7
Introduction In 2006, the Council on Scientific Affairs (CSA) of
the American Dental Association (ADA) published
recommendations for the use of professionally-applied topical
fluorides for caries prevention.1 Fluoride
is the primary agent available for caries prevention. The local
availability of fluoride to the tooth surface
has been shown to prevent caries by primarily three mechanisms2,
3: 1) inhibiting demineralization of
tooth enamel; 2) enhancing remineralization of tooth enamel
prior to lesion progression; and 3)
inhibiting the enzyme activity of cariogenic bacteria.
The objective of this report is to update the evidence at the
5-year interval according to ADA policy and
address additional questions related to the use of
prescription-strength, home-use topical fluorides. In
this review the authors evaluated sodium, stannous, and
acidulated phosphate fluoride for professional
and prescription home use, including varnishes, gels, foams,
rinses and prophylaxis pastes. Not
included in this report are: over-the-counter products, slow
release delivery devices, dental materials
that release fluorides and products based on sodium
monofluorophosphate (MFP), silver diamine
fluoride, and titanium tetrafluoride. Sodium monofluorophosphate
is primarily a non-prescription, daily
use fluoride product. Silver diamine fluoride and titanium
tetrafluoride are not currently available in any
products in the U.S. For the remainder of this manuscript, the
term topical fluoride(s) will be used to
include professionally-applied as well as prescription-strength,
home-use products.
This report is intended to assist practitioners with
decision-making about the use of topical fluoride
caries preventive agents. The panel notes that lack of clinical
data, changes in formulations across
time, and a wide variety of products can hamper decision-making.
The recommendations in this
document do not purport to define a standard of care, but rather
should be integrated with each
practitioners professional judgment and each patients needs and
preferences.
The authors addressed three clinical questions:
1. In primary and permanent teeth, does the use of a topical
fluoride compared to no topical
fluoride reduce the incidence of new lesions, or arrestA or
reverseA existing coronal and/or root
caries?
A Although the original clinical questions asked about arresting
and reversing coronal and/or root caries,
insufficient data were found to answer the question; therefore,
these outcomes are not addressed in these clinical
recommendations.
-
8
2. For primary and permanent teeth, is one topical fluoride
agent more effective than another in
reducing the incidence of, or arrestingA or reversingA coronal
and/or root caries?
3. Does the use of prophylaxis before application of topical
fluoride reduce the incidence of caries
to a greater extent than topical fluoride application without
prophylaxis?
Although improved clinical outcomes such as reduced need for
treatment, enhanced quality of life,
increased function, decreased pain and tooth loss, and improved
esthetics are the ultimate goal of
preventive interventions, outcomes such as reductions in
incidence and progression (arrests or
reversals)A of caries are commonly reported outcomes for topical
fluorides and thus are the a priori
outcomes measures chosen for these clinical recommendations.
The panel notes that clinical trials generally test the efficacy
of an intervention, which results in the best
possible outcome for the intervention because of the controlled
nature of the trial and strict
inclusion/exclusion criteria for participants. These results do
not necessarily equate to effectiveness of
an intervention, i.e. how the intervention works in routine
practice, which typically includes patients with
comorbidities who may be taking multiple medications. The
efficacy is almost always higher than the
effectiveness because of the presence of idealized conditions.
Several different topical fluoride
modalities, including those planned for home use, have been
reviewed in this document. Practitioners
can expect different compliance with treatment plans
incorporating home-use products compared to
products applied by the practitioner. Cost, efficacy, and/or
effectiveness related to the intended usage
environment also may vary.
Clinical considerations and recommendations The grading system4
used in this report is adapted from the United States Preventive
Service Task
Force (USPSTF) system5 and differs markedly from the system used
originally in the 2006 Clinical
Recommendations.1 The difference is that current clinical
recommendations are based on synthesis of
primary evidence collected via a de novo systematic review;
whereas the previous clinical
recommendations were primarily based on published systematic
reviews, with additional studies
included if published after the most recent systematic review.
Another difference is that these
recommendations are based on the net benefit of the
intervention, i.e. a balance of benefits to potential
harms, in conjunction with the level of certainty in the
evidence, whereas the previous
recommendations were based solely on the design6 of studies on
benefits. This has resulted in some
-
9
modifications to the strength assigned to the individual
recommendations for products reviewed in this
report compared to the 2006 Clinical Recommendations.
The current grading system includes the use of expert opinion as
a means of making clinical
recommendations or not making clinical recommendations when
evidence was lacking, contradictory,
or judged to be at high risk of bias, so that the panel could
not reliably estimate the net benefit of the
intervention. Practitioners should note the strength of the
recommendations and endeavor to
understand the level of certainty in the underlying evidence, as
well as the balance of benefits to
potential harms. They should discuss uncertainties in evidence
with their patients, providing awareness
that there is usually some level of uncertainty in the evidence
used for clinical decision-making.
A practitioner should consider a patients risk of experiencing
disease when developing an optimal
caries prevention plan. Part of a patients risk includes whether
the patient lives in an optimally
fluoridated community and uses fluoridated toothpaste. Patients
at low risk for caries may not need
additional fluoride interventions, whereas caries in very high
risk individuals appears at times to be
largely refractory to additional intensive preventive
interventions.7, 8
Professional judgment is required to interpret the clinical
relevance of all effect measures to the
individual patient. The combination of the patients caries risk
status, the practitioners professional
judgment, and a patients needs and preferences should guide
decision-making. Patient education,
assessment of readiness for change, dietary advice, other
preventive modalities, and periodic clinical
examinations should be considered as a part of the caries
prevention plan. In public health settings,
additional considerations include the feasibility and cost of
the proposed intervention. The panel did not
include these issues in providing its clinical
recommendations.
Balancing benefits with potential harms
When considering any intervention, the practitioner and patient
must balance the potential benefits with
the potential harms. The panel considered harms reported by
included articles as well as known
potential harms of fluoride use. Potential harms of topical
fluorides include, but may not be limited to,
the following:
1. Nausea and vomiting associated with the ingestion of topical
fluorides.9
2. Dental fluorosis (an esthetic concern) while tooth enamel is
developing until about age 6, due to
daily ingestion of topical fluoride, such as from toothpaste or
from prescription home use gels.
-
10
There is less of a concern with professionally-applied topical
fluorides that have much longer
intervals between applications.10 Additionally, fluoride varnish
has less potential for harms than
other forms of high concentration topical fluoride because the
amount of fluoride that is placed in
the mouth with fluoride varnish is approximately one-tenth that
of other professionally-applied
products.11
The panel judged that the benefits outweighed the potential for
harms for all professionally-applied or
prescription-strength topical fluorides and age groups except
for children under age 6, where the risk of
swallowing and associated events (particularly nausea and
vomiting) outweighed the potential benefits
for all professionally-applied or prescription-strength topical
fluorides except 2.26% fluoride varnish.
Clinical Recommendations
For individuals at elevated risk of developing dental caries,
the panel made clinical recommendations
for the use of specific topical fluoride agents (as shown in
Table 1); these recommendations are based
on the evidence statements and the balance of benefits with
potential harm. The panel recommends
topical fluoride agents only for people at elevated risk for
dental caries. Further details of the strength of
the clinical recommendations for each form of topical fluoride
and age group are available in Appendix
1.
The panel recommends the following for people at risk of
developing dental caries: 2.26% fluoride
varnish or 1.23% fluoride (APF) gel, or a prescription-strength,
home-use 0.5% fluoride gel or paste or
0.09% fluoride mouthrinse for patients 6 years or older. Only
2.26% fluoride varnish is recommended
for children younger than 6 years. The strengths of the
recommendations for the recommended
products varied from in favor to expert opinion for.
The panel judged that the benefits outweighed the potential for
harm for all professionally applied and
prescription-strength, home-use topical fluoride agents and age
groups except for children younger
than 6 years. In these children, the risk of experiencing
adverse events (particularly nausea and
vomiting) associated with swallowing professionally applied
topical fluoride agents outweighed the
potential benefits of using all of the topical fluoride agents
except for 2.26 percent fluoride varnish.
-
11
Table 1. Clinical recommendations for use of
Professionally-applied or prescription-strength, home-use topical
fluoride agents for caries
prevention in patients at elevated risk of developing caries
-
12
Systematic review methods The authors represent a
multidisciplinary panel of subject matter experts convened by the
American Dental
Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs (CSA). The panel
conducted a comprehensive search of the
biomedical literature, screened the results of the search
according to inclusion/exclusion criteria, critically
appraised the included studies, synthesized the data through
meta-analyses where appropriate, evaluated the
level of certainty in the evidence regarding the magnitude of
effect, and used a standardized process to
develop clinical recommendations. The supplemental materials
(Appendices 2-4) contain further detailed
information for the interested reader as follows: Appendix 2 -
search methods; Appendix 3 - detailed list of
excluded studies; and Appendix 4 - key information, risk of bias
assessments, and extracted data from the
included studies.
Literature search
Two authors (KA and JF) used the strategy as presented in
Appendix 2 to search MEDLINE through PubMed
and the Cochrane Library. In addition, two authors (KA and ST)
hand-searched references of relevant recent
systematic reviews12-14 and other selected articles in order to
include studies that might have been missed
through the electronic sources.
Figure 1 shows the process and results of the literature
screening process. MEDLINE (through PubMed) was
searched from 1965 through March 4, 2011 resulting in 5,009
articles. An additional search of MEDLINE
(through PubMed) to identify articles on prescription-strength
toothpaste was conducted on October 5, 2011 for
articles published since 1965 inclusive, which identified 23
articles. A second electronic database (The
Cochrane Library) was also searched from 1965 through March 4,
2011 resulting 1,281 articles. The electronic
database searches were all updated on August 30, 2012 resulting
in 260 unique hits, for a total of 6,547
articles found. Through a hand-searching process, another 47
articles were identified for consideration.
-
13
Two authors (KA and JF) independently screened the titles and
abstracts using the inclusion and exclusion
criteria as shown in Table 2 and selected 402 articles for
full-text review. One author (KA) reviewed the
manuscripts in full and identified articles for exclusion as
reported in Appendix 3. Two members of the expert
panel (NT and TW) reviewed the reasons for exclusion and
approved the final exclusion list. When a reviewer
was uncertain, she referred the papers to the expert panel
members (NT and TW) for decision. Discrepancies
between reviewers were resolved by a third expert panel member
and Chair of this workgroup (RW).
Figure 1: Flow diagram of the literature search and screening
process
-
14
Table 2. Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Prospective human controlled clinical
studies (randomized or non-randomized)
Fluoride agents requiring professional application or
prescription
Studies that report caries incidence, arrest or reversal as
outcomes
Exclusion criteria: Studies irrelevant to the topic
in vitro and animal studies
in situ studies using material surrogates (e.g., studies with
removable appliances hosting enamel slabs)
Studies where the only reported outcome was increased salivary
flow or reduction in Streptococcus mutans
Split-mouth designs
Cross-over design
Studies in which the experimental arm had other co-interventions
(fluorides/OH instruction etc.) in which the control arm did not.
(e.g., Exp: CHX + F; Control: F)
Studies that have sealants or toothpaste as the control group,
except for studies that evaluated home use products
Studies reporting on fluoride-releasing dental materials
Studies reporting on slow release devices
Baseline caries data not reported
Abstracts only
Non English
Post-treatment results and effect of cessation of
intervention
Products that are commercially available as OTC
APF Varnish
Studies that do not report the concentration of fluoride
Short-term (less than 1 year) studies unless the study reported
frank cavitation in less than a year
Studies on products that are not commercially available in the
U.S.
Critical appraisal of included studies: The grading system4 used
in this report was adapted from the
United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) system5.
The panel assessed the following four key
elements in their critical appraisal process: Randomization,
allocation concealment, blinding and losses to
follow-up. All panel members participated in an orientation
through a conference call to standardize the
application of the critical appraisal criteria. Each panel
member received five to seven studies to review, along
with a standardized data abstraction form. Independent from the
panel members, one of three authors (KA, JF,
or ST) duplicated the review and critical appraisal of all
included studies independently and blinded to the
panels review. This ensured appraisal by two independent and
blinded reviewers and standardized application
of the criteria by all reviewers. During a three-day
face-to-face panel meeting, all panel members reviewed and
extensively discussed results from each study.
Each included trial was critically appraised according to the
criteria displayed in Table 3, which are formatted
such that a yes response indicates low risk of bias. The number
of yes answers was counted to provide a
risk of bias score. The numerical values of the risk of bias
score generally can be interpreted as: 9-11 = low
-
15
risk of bias; 7-8 = moderate risk of bias; and 0-6 = high risk
of bias. Note that studies were assessed based on
the methods they reported, sometimes without certain knowledge
of the methods actually used.
Table 3. Criteria for assessment of individual study risk of
bias
Data synthesis and meta-analysis
Choice of outcome measures. Caries increment was the primary
outcome measure, which is the number of
newly decayed, missing and/or filled surfaces or teeth
experienced by each participant per year compared to
baseline. Caries increment is derived from longitudinal and not
cross-sectional studies. The panel adapted a
set of rules published in a Cochrane review of caries trials15
to select outcome data from each study for
subsequent analysis. Specifically, the panel chose data for "all
surface types combined" over data for specific
types (surfaces)" only; data for "all erupted and erupting teeth
combined" over data for "erupted" only, and this
over data for "erupting only"; data from "clinical and
radiological examinations combined" over data from
"clinical" only, and this over "radiological" only; DMFS (dmfs)
scores over DFS (dfs) or DS (ds); netB caries
B Net caries increment is obtained by subtracting the number of
reversals (negative increments) from the number of
positive caries increments (Broadbent and Thomson 2005). 16.
Broadbent J. M., Thomson WM. For debate: problems with the DMF
index pertinent to dental caries data analysis. Community Dent Oral
Epidemiol 2005;33(6):400-9.
Were patients in both study arms recruited from the same
population at the same time?
Randomization reported (random sequence generation)?
Randomization procedure described?
Allocation concealment claimed?
Blinding (examiner, patient and statistician)?
Rate of losses to follow-up similar between treatment
groups?
Baseline caries status of those lost to follow-up similar to
those remaining?
Baseline caries status similar between treatment groups at
end of study or adjustment for confounding?
Sample size estimated a priori (to ensure sufficient power)?
Intention to treat* used?
Conflict of interest absent?
*As defined by study author(s)
-
16
increment data over crudeC (observed) increment data; and
follow-up nearest to three years (often the one at
the end of the treatment period) over all other lengths of
follow-up.
When data on both the tooth surface-level and tooth-level were
available, the panel extracted data for both.
Similarly, the panel extracted data for dentinal/cavitated
caries lesions, as well as for "all stages" (these data
are presented in Appendix 3). The panel also extracted data for
primary and permanent teeth separately.
Imputing variances. When needed and possible, the panel imputed
non-reported standard deviations using a
linear regression equation. 15
Adjusting for cluster-randomization. Some studies used group
randomization (groups such as schools or
classes as opposed to individuals receiving the same
intervention). In some of these studies, the results were
not adequately adjusted for the unit of analysis being the
cluster rather than the individual. Standard statistical
procedures for adjustment for clustering depend on the number of
clusters and the intracluster correlation
coefficient (ICC).17 The ICC ranges from 0 to 1, with the
smaller number indicating the smaller cluster effect
and vice versa; however, it is often not reported, thus
requiring estimation. 17,18 The standardized mean
differenceD (SMD) for three ICC values (0, 0.1, and 0.2) were
calculated, and the resulting effects on the SMD
are presented, when applicable.
Effect estimates. Individual study results were combined by
meta-analysis when multiple papers using
comparable methods were included for the same fluoride agent,
with the objective of obtaining a more powerful
estimate of the true effect size. The SMD between the treatment
and control arms was used as the effect
estimate, since it indicates whether the intervention is
effective (i.e., works or does not work) and allows
measures on a variety of scales to be combined.
Data on cavitated surfaces were used in the meta-analysis
calculations when both surface- and tooth-level
cavitated data were extracted. When only all stages data were
reported, those data were also included in the
C Crude caries increment is obtained by comparing the baseline
and follow-up status of each surface (on a surface-by-
surface basis). It does not allow for reversals. (Broadbent and
Thomson 2005).16. Ibid.
D Standardized mean difference is the difference in means
divided by a standard deviation. The standard deviation is the
pooled standard deviation of outcomes. The SMD value does not
depend on the measurement scale, so it is a useful metric when
outcomes are measured on different scales. What it actually
measures is the number of standard deviations between the means.
[Cochrane Handbook, Meta-analysis of continuous data,
http://www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/html/modA1-4.htm.]
-
17
meta-analysis with cavitated data. When only tooth-level
cavitated data were reported, the data were
summarized separately.
For individual studies judged to be too clinically
heterogeneousE to combine into a meta-analysis, SMD
between the treatment and control arms in each study was used as
the summary estimate. Individual study
results (as SMD), if present, are shown in a table along with
the meta-analysis results, and not presented
graphically in a forest plot. All analyses were designed to
assess superiority, not equivalence.
Clinical interpretation issues. Other systematic reviews on
topical fluorides12-14 presented prevented fraction
(PF), number needed to treat (NNT), and SMD as their effect
estimates. The panel chose a pragmatic
approach to summarize and interpret the data, which was to
summarize one effect estimate (SMD), and then
provide conversions of that estimate into both PF and NNT for
those more familiar with these effect estimates.
The methods are described in Appendix 5, and the results are
presented in each topical fluoride section. The
methods originate from the observation14 that the character of
DMFS data (that mean caries increments are
similar to their standard deviations) implies that meta-analysis
of SMD (the difference between two means
divided by an estimate of the within-group standard deviation)
is similar in magnitude to PF (the difference in
mean caries increments between the treatment and control groups
divided by the mean increment of the
control group). The panel notes that the regression equation
used to convert SMD to PF in Appendix 5 was
derived from studies on topical fluorides reviewed in this
report and is not generalizable beyond this report. In
addition, the NNT in this report was based on an annual caries
increment of 1 DMFS in the control group.
Generating forest plots. Random-effects meta-analyses were
conducted throughout to generate forest plots
using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 software19 when there were two
or more combinable trials. The random
effects method (rather than the fixed effect method) is
recommended when trial data are taken from the
literature and likely do not represent the same population.20
The random effects model is more conservative in
that the variance is composed of both the within-study and
between-studies sampling errors. Individual study
and summary effect estimates were weighted by the inverse of the
variance according to standard methods.21
Statistical heterogeneity. Heterogeneity in study results
typically arises from differences in study methodology
and/or differences in the clinical aspects of the trial, such as
populations, time period of the study, and/or
E Clinical heterogeneity arises from variability in
participants, interventions, and outcomes studied. [Cochrane
Handbook
for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated
March 2011), Editors: Julian PT Higgins and Sally Green.]
-
18
topical fluoride dose.22 The panel assessed heterogeneity from
the forest plots based on the I2 statistic
generated by Review Manager19 software. The statistical
heterogeneity was interpreted as23: I2
-
19
Low
More information could allow a reliable estimation of effects on
health outcomes.
The available evidence is insufficient to support the statement
or the statement is based on extrapolation from the best available
evidence. Evidence is insufficient or the reliability of estimated
effects is limited by factors such as:
the limited number or size of studies;
important flaws in study design or methods leading to high risk
of bias;
inconsistency** of findings across individual studies;
gaps in the chain of evidence;
findings not applicable to the populations of interest; or
a lack of information on important health outcomes.
*Adapted from the United States Preventive Services Task Force
system **Inconsistency of findings is a concept incorporating
direction of effect, similarity of point estimates, overlapping of
confidence intervals, and statistical heterogeneity. Statistical
heterogeneity (I
2) is interpreted as
23: I
2
-
20
The panel used the criteria displayed in Table 5 to combine the
Level of Certainty with the Net Benefit Rating
to arrive at the strength of the recommendation (Strong, In
Favor, Weak, Expert Opinion For, Expert Opinion
Against, or Against). Table 6 shows the definitions of these
strengths of recommendations.
Table 5. Balancing Level of Certainty and Net Benefit Rating to
arrive at recommendation strength
Level of Certainty
Net Benefit Rating
Benefits outweigh
potential harms
Benefits balanced with
potential harms
No benefit or potential harms
outweigh benefits
High Strong In Favor Against
Moderate In favor Weak Against
Low Expert Opinion For or Expert Opinion Against
The USPSTF system defines this category as insufficient evidence
and makes I-Statements. They do not make recommendations when the
level of certainty in the
evidence is low.
Table 6. Definitions for the strength of recommendation:*
Recommendation strength
Definition
Strong Evidence strongly supports providing this
intervention
In Favor Evidence favors providing this intervention
Weak Evidence suggests implementing this intervention after
alternatives have been considered.
Expert Opinion For Evidence is lacking; the level of certainty
is low. Expert Opinion guides this recommendation
Expert Opinion Against Evidence is lacking; the level of
certainty is low. Expert Opinion suggests not implementing this
intervention
Against Evidence suggests not implementing this intervention or
discontinuing ineffective procedures
*Adapted from the USPSTF system The USPSTF system defines this
category as insufficient evidence and makes I-Statements. They do
not make recommendations when the level of
certainty in the evidence is low.
-
21
Note that as described in Table 4 for Low level of certainty
(when evidence is insufficient or reliability of
estimated effects is limited) and Table 5, the expert panel can
still make a recommendation based on their
collective judgment, based on the available evidence. Upon
agreement that the level of certainty in the effect
was low, and when the panel decided to make a clinical
recommendation, the language of that
recommendation was discussed and amended until a majority of the
panel was satisfied, as assessed by vote.
A summary of the steps the panel took to translate the evidence
into clinical recommendation strength levels is
presented at the end of each treatment section (subdivided by
age/dentition) with the subheading Evidence
Profiles.24 The bulleted list includes: 1) the level of
certainty in the effect estimate (column 1 in Table 5); 2) the
benefit of the treatment presented in three formats
(standardized mean difference [SMD], prevented fraction
[PF], and number needed to treat [NNT]); 3) potential harms
associated with the treatment; 4) the panels
judgment of the benefit-to-potential-harm balance (net benefit
rating, columns 2 through 4 in Table 5); and 5)
the resulting strength of the recommendation from Table 5. By
making the judgments explicit, the panel hopes
the reader can understand the reasoning behind the clinical
judgments that were made to develop the clinical
recommendations. The panels judgments are based on the best
available data. Some topical fluorides could
perform better than others in various situations. The panel
notes that mean effects are just that, i.e., average
results; and some patients could experience a very large effect,
while others experience little effect. Similarly,
small effects for an individual patient can have large public
health effects if they apply to a large part of the
population.25
The panel approved clinical recommendations by a simple majority
vote. The panel sought comments on this
report from other subject matter experts, methodologists,
epidemiologists and end-users before finalizing the
recommendations. The ADA Council on Scientific Affairs approved
the final report for publication.
-
22
Results The panel included 71 trials in 82 published papersF to
assess the efficacy of various topical fluoride agents for
preventing caries. When possible, data from the studies were
combined through a meta-analysis. Results of
the quality assessment and the data synthesis are presented
below. Table 7 presents the fluoride
concentrations of each topical fluoride agent evaluated, both as
concentration of fluoride ion and concentration
of sodium fluoride.
Table 7. Fluoride ion and sodium fluoride concentrations of
topical fluoride agents
Topical Fluoride Agent % F- ion % NaF
Professionally-applied
2.26% fluoride varnish 2.26 5.0
0.1% fluoride varnish 0.1 N/A*
Acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) gel (with 0.1 M phosphoric
acid)
1.23 2.7
Acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) foam (with 0.1 M phosphoric
acid)
1.23** 2.7**
Prophylaxis paste containing fluoride (most as APF) 1.23 2.7
Prescription-strength, home-use
Prescription-strength gels/pastes with or without acidulation
(0.1M phosphoric acid)
0.5 1.1
Prescription-strength mouthrinses 0.09 0.2
*0.09% difluorsilane **Concentration of fluoride before
dispensed. When delivered as foam by combining gel with air, the
total amount of fluoride in the foam product is reduced.
Some general considerations to take into account in reviewing
the evidence include: First, some of the studies
were done before the 1970s, when dental caries rates among
children were higher,26 the percentage of the
population receiving fluoridated water was substantially
lower,27 and the percentage of people using fluoridated
dentifrice was much lower28. Second, some studies were conducted
in countries with different levels of
background fluoride exposure, other caries preventive efforts,
and caries prevalence. Lastly, the study
populations often could not be categorized in terms of caries
risk and the panel could not extrapolate to the risk
categories as defined today. Therefore, caution is advised when
extrapolating the results to todays high-risk
populations, such as children at high risk for early childhood
caries.
F Note that there are several cases where one study was cited by
several papers. All papers are cited for each study in
these cases.
-
23
Varnish: 2.26% and 0.1% fluoride
There are over 30 fluoride-containing varnish products on the
market today, with varying compositions
(including resin, solvent, and presence of tricalcium phosphate
[TCP]) and delivery systems. These
compositional differences lead to widely variable
pharmacokinetics, the effects of which remain largely
untested clinically. Through its literature search process, the
panel found clinical trials on four brand name
products and decided to summarize the results based on the
percentage of fluoride, which was either 2.26% or
0.1%. Further research revealed that products identified with an
identical brand name (Fluor Protector) had a
compositional change in 1987 from 0.7% fluoride to 0.1%
fluoride29. Since the 0.7% fluoride product is no
longer available commercially, these trials30-34 were not
eligible for inclusion in this review. Therefore, the data
are subdivided by 2.26% and 0.1% fluoride varnish.
Varnish (2.26% fluoride)
General summary of results
The panel identified 17 randomized and five non-randomized
clinical trials that evaluated 2.26% fluoride
varnish. There were six randomized31-33, 35-39 and two
non-randomized40, 41 clinical trials concerning the primary
dentition, 11 randomized31-33, 42-52 and two non-randomized53,
54 clinical trials concerning the permanent
dentition, and one controlled55 clinical trial that combined
results for both dentitions. The control groups were
no treatment, oral health counseling, or placebo varnish. The
studies were carried out in populations with
various levels of dental caries. The studies were conducted in
many countries (Brazil, Canada, Hong Kong,
India, Kuwait, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, U.K. and
U.S.), with and without additional fluoride use or
other fluoride exposures (although most studies were in low
fluoride areas), and with and without prior
prophylaxis. The ages of the children at baseline varied from 6
months to 8 years for studies of the primary
teeth; and 5 to 15 years for studies of the permanent teeth. The
panel identified two studies50, 51 of root caries.
The age range in these two studies was 44 to 79 years. The
varnish was professionally applied every 3 to 12
months, with the majority of studies applying varnish every 6
months.
The study characteristics, bias scores, and the extracted
outcomes data are presented in Tables A through C
in Appendix 4. The bias scores ranged from 2 to 11 for the
studies on primary and permanent teeth.
The panel combined the surface-level data for studies comparing
varnish application to placebo or no
treatment into two meta-analyses, one each for the primary and
permanent dentitions. These meta-analyses
are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Some studies were not included in
the meta-analysis because the results for
primary and permanent teeth were combined55, only tooth-level
data were reported53, and only data on the
occlusal surfaces of the first permanent molars were
reported45.
-
24
The results of two root caries studies50, 51 were combined in a
separate meta-analysis (Figure 4).
Table 8 summarizes the SMD from all the studies, separated into
those results generated via meta-analysis
and those of individual studies (not included in the
meta-analysis).
Figure 2. Standardized mean differences from meta-analysis of
2.26% fluoride varnish studies on
primary teeth [d(e/m)fs]
Notes: 1) Adjustment for cluster randomized trials (Grodzka) at
ICC=0.1: -0.20 [-0.32, -0.08], I2=58%; at ICC=0.2: -0..20 [-0.32,
-0.08], I
2=57%; 2) For
Clark, used Cochrane regression equation for imputing SD; 3) For
Autio-Gold and Gugwad, calculated the change between baseline and
final
measurements, assuming r=0.5 for SD calculation; 4) For
Weintraub, ITT data used combining both treatment arms; 4) For
Hardman, converted SE to
SD; 5) For Lawrence, used adjusted means for aboriginal only
data, and converted SE (2.04) to SD using the adjusted difference
according to SD =
SE/(sqrt(1/832+1/328)).
Figure 3. Standardized mean differences from meta-analysis of
2.26% fluoride varnish studies on
permanent teeth [DMFS]
Notes: 1) Koch-SE converted to SD using the adjusted difference
according to SD = SE/(sqrt(1/60+1/61)); 2) Moder-mean prevalence at
3 years adding
Decayed 03 plus Filled data; and used Cochrane regression
equation for imputing SD; 3) For Clark, used Cochrane regression
equation for imputing
SD; 4) Tewari converted SE to SD using the same approach as for
Koch SE; 5) Bravo added fissured and non-fissured means for total
surface mean;
not cluster adjusted in this figure; used Cochrane regression
equation for imputing SD; 6) Milsom used Total DFS increment - Mean
of cluster
summaries data with the number of clusters used as the sample
size.
Sensitivity analysis: Adjustment for cluster randomized trials
(Bravo) at ICC=0.1: -0.37 [-0.52, -0.23], I2=65%; at ICC=0.2: -0.37
[-0.51, -0.22], I
2=64%
-
25
Figure 4. Standardized mean differences from meta-analysis of
2.26% fluoride varnish studies on
decayed root caries surfaces
Table 8. Summary of standardized mean differences from
meta-analysis and individual studies for 2.26% fluoride varnish
studies
Outcome Measures Number
and type* of studies
Number of participants**
Standardized Mean Difference [95% Confidence Interval]
(negative favors intervention, positive favors control)
Meta-analysis results: Primary teeth
d(e/m)fs, increment or incidence
6 RCT31-33, 35-39 and 2 CCT40, 41
3,409** -0.19 [-0.31, -0.08]
Meta-analysis results: Permanent teeth
D(M)FS, increment or incidence
8 RCT31-33, 42-44, 46-49, 52
and 1 CCT54 2,574 -0.38 [-0.53, -0.24]
Root caries, meta-analysis results
Root caries increment 2 RCT50, 51 132 -0.67 [-1.14, -0.20]
Individual study results
Combined dentition 1 CCT55 390 DMFS + dmfs: -1.47 [-1.70, -1.25]
DMFT + dmft: -1.15 [-1.37, -0.94]
DMFT 1 CCT53 77 -0.13 [-0.58, 0.32]
DS occlusal surfaces 1 RCT45 79 -0.54 [-1.06, -0.03] Notes: *
RCT = randomized controlled trial; CCT = controlled clinical trial
(non-randomized); **Including all participants (not using
cluster-adjusted number of participants or numbers of
clusters);
all stages used if cavitated data not available; parentheses
indicate that component was included in
some of the combined results and not others
The results of the meta-analyses for primary teeth (Figure 2)
indicate that the application of 2.26% fluoride
varnish has a statistically significant effect (SMD -0.19 [95%
CI: -0.31, -0.08]) on caries prevention as
measured by increment or incidence using surface-level data.
The results of the meta-analyses for permanent teeth (Figure 3)
indicate that 2.26% fluoride varnish has a
statistically significant effect (SMD= -0.38 [95% CI: -0.53,
-0.24]) on caries prevention as measured by
increment or incidence using surface-level data. Several studies
provided data that could not be included in the
meta-analysis, the results of which are summarized in Table
8.
-
26
In addition, two RCTs on root caries indicated a statistically
significant improvement in root caries prevention
as shown in Figure 4.
Evidence statements
The panel concluded with moderate certainty that there is a
benefit of 2.26% fluoride varnish application
at least twice per year for caries prevention in the primary
teeth among children aged 6 months to 8
years. This statement is based on meta-analysis of seven studies
that ranged from low to high risk of bias and
included over 3,000 participants; however, it is noted that
there was moderate statistical heterogeneity
(I2=58%) and inconsistency among the results of the studies.
The panel concluded with moderate certainty that there is a
benefit of 2.26% fluoride varnish application
at least twice per year for caries prevention in the permanent
teeth among children aged 5 to 15 years.
This statement is based on meta-analysis of nine studies that
ranged from low to high risk of bias and included
over 4,500 participants; however, it is noted that there was
moderate statistical heterogeneity (I2=68%) and
some inconsistency among the results of the studies.
The panel concluded with low certainty that there is a benefit
of 2.26% fluoride varnish application at
least twice per year for root caries prevention in adults with
root caries. This statement is based on meta-
analysis of two studies with low to moderate risk of bias that
included only 132 participants, but there was low
statistical heterogeneity (I2=28%), showing a consistent effect
between the two studies.
The panel identified no studies of the effect on coronal caries
of 2.26% fluoride varnish on the permanent teeth
of adults over the age of 18.
Evidence profiles: 2.26% fluoride varnish
Primary teeth (children under age 6):
Level of certainty: Moderate
Benefit: Yes (smaller caries increment or incidence with topical
fluoride use). o SMD=-0.19 [-0.31, -0.08] o PF=0.22 o NNT for
control rate of 1 dmfs per year = 4
Adverse events or harms: Little potential for harms if
swallowed
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Benefits outweigh
potential harms
Strength of clinical recommendation: In favor
Permanent teeth (children):
Level of certainty: Moderate
Benefit: Yes (smaller caries increment or incidence with topical
fluoride use). o SMD=-0.38 [-0.53, -0.24] o PF=0.36
-
27
o NNT for control rate of 1 DMFS per year = 3
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Benefits outweigh
potential harms
Strength of clinical recommendation: In favor Permanent teeth
coronal caries (adults):
Level of certainty: No certainty (no studies)
Benefit: Unknown, but extrapolated from permanent teeth of
children data
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Benefits outweigh
potential harms
Strength of clinical recommendation: Expert opinion for use
Permanent teeth - root caries (adults):
Level of certainty: Low
Benefit: Yes (smaller caries increment or incidence with topical
fluoride use). o SMD=-0.67 [-1.14, -0.20] o PF=0.58 o NNT for
control rate of 1 DMFS per year = 2
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Benefits outweigh
potential harms
Strength of clinical recommendation: Expert opinion for use
-
28
Varnish (0.1% fluoride)
General summary of results
The panel identified two non-randomized clinical trials56, 57
that evaluated 0.1% fluoride varnish on the
primary dentition and one randomized clinical trial58 on the
permanent dentition. The control groups
received oral hygiene instruction or no treatment. The studies
were carried out in Germany and Sweden
in populations with various baseline levels of dental caries.
The ages of the children at baseline varied
from 4 to 5 years for primary dentition and 9 to 12 years for
permanent dentition. The varnish was
professionally applied every 6 months for the primary dentition
and every 4 months for the permanent
dentition. Additional fluoride use or other fluoride exposure
was variable, and all studies included prior
prophylaxis.
The study characteristics, bias scores, and extracted outcomes
data are presented in Tables D through
F in Appendix 4. The bias scores were 2 for the two clinical
trials and 6 for the RCT.
The panel compared varnish application to no treatment in one
meta-analysis for the primary dentition
as shown in Figure 5. Table 9 summarizes the meta-analysis
results and also lists the single-study
results for the permanent dentition.
Figure 5. Standardized mean differences from meta-analysis of
studies of 0.1% fluoride varnish
applied twice a year to primary teeth [d(e/m)fs]
Notes: Twetman and Petersson not cluster adjusted in figure.
Sensitivity analysis: Adjustment for cluster randomized trials
(Twetman and Petersson) at ICC=0.1: -0.05 [-0.30, 0.20], I2=0%; at
ICC=0.2: -0.05
[-0.40, 0.29], I2=0%
-
29
Table 9. Summary of standardized mean differences from
meta-analysis and individual studies for 0.1% fluoride varnish
Outcome Measures
Number and type* of studies
Number of participants**
Standardized Mean Difference [95% Confidence Interval]
(negative favors intervention, positive favors control)
Primary teeth, meta-analysis results
dfs increment or incidence
2 CCT56, 57 4,977 -0.11 [-0.27, 0.06]
Permanent teeth, individual study results
DMFS increment 1 RCT58 318 -0.15 [-0.37, 0.08] Notes: * RCT =
randomized controlled trial; CCT = controlled clinical trial
(non-randomized); **Including all participants (not using
cluster-adjusted number of participants)
The estimate of effect of 0.1% fluoride varnish applied twice
per year on the primary teeth shows no
statistically significant effect, as shown in Figure 5.
The estimate of effect of 0.1% fluoride varnish applied at least
once per year on the permanent dentition
is not statistically significant, as shown in Table 9.
Evidence statement
The panel concluded with moderate certainty that there is no
benefit of 0.1% fluoride varnish
application twice per year for caries prevention of primary
teeth among children less than 6
years old. This statement is based on meta-analysis of two
studies at high risk of bias with almost 5,000
participants; however, the results were inconsistent with high
statistical heterogeneity (I2=79% without
cluster adjustment). Furthermore, when adjusted for clustering,
the statistical heterogeneity was
eliminated (I2=0%).
The panel concluded with low certainty that there is no benefit
of 0.1% fluoride varnish application
three times per year for caries prevention of permanent teeth
among children aged 6-14 years
old. This statement is based on one study at high risk of bias
with 318 participants.
The panel identified no studies on the effect of 0.1% fluoride
varnish on coronal or root caries on the
permanent teeth of adults over the age of 18.
-
30
Evidence profiles: 0.1% fluoride varnish
Primary teeth (children under age 6):
Level of certainty: Moderate
Benefit: No
Adverse events or harms: Little potential for harms if
swallowed
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): No benefit
Strength of clinical recommendation: Against
Permanent teeth (children):
Level of certainty: Low
Benefit: No
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): No benefit
Strength of clinical recommendation: Expert opinion against use
Permanent teeth coronal caries (adults):
Level of certainty: No certainty (no studies)
Benefit: Unknown, but extrapolated from permanent teeth of
children data
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): No benefit
Strength of clinical recommendation: Expert opinion against use
Permanent teeth root caries (adults):
Level of certainty: No certainty (no studies)
Benefit: Unknown
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Unknown
Strength of clinical recommendation: Panel unable to make a
recommendation
-
31
APF gel (1.23% fluoride)
General summary of results
The panel identified 11 randomized59-70 and four non-randomized
55, 71-75 clinical trials that evaluated APF gel
(1.23% fluoride as Acidulated Phosphate Fluoride [APF], 0.1 M
phosphoric acid) quarterly, semiannually,
annually or biennually (one application observed after 2 years).
The comparison groups received no treatment,
placebo, prophylaxis, or non-fluoride placebo gel. All studies
except one71 were on permanent teeth. All
studies applied fluoride gel for four minutes.
The study characteristics, bias scores, and the extracted
outcomes data are presented in Tables G through I in
Appendix 4. All studies were conducted on school-aged children
(between 3 and 16 years old) except for
one69. One study69 was conducted on non-institutionalized adults
at least 60 years of age and reported on root
caries. Ten studies were conducted in the U.S. and five
elsewhere (India55 70, U.K.66, China65 and Canada67).
The bias scores of eight55, 59-61, 64, 66, 69, 71, 75 of the
studies ranged from 3 to 6, and seven55, 56, 58, 60, 61 70, 72-74,
76
were rated as 7. Although most studies used blinded assessment
of outcomes, these bias scores were driven
primarily by lack of reporting of the randomization procedure,
allocation concealment, and use of intention-to-
treat analysis.
The panel combined the results of 12 studies on permanent teeth
through a meta-analysis that was grouped by
frequency of application. Three of the studies were excluded
from the meta-analysis because of clinical
heterogeneity (the participants were older adults and the
outcome was root caries increment)69 and because of
non-comparable outcomes measures (results combined for primary
and permanent teeth55; and primary teeth
only71). Figure 6 presents the results of the meta-analysis.
-
32
Figure 6. Standardized mean differences from meta-analysis of
studies of APF gel (1.23% fluoride)
applied on permanent teeth [DMFS] grouped by frequency of
application
Notes: Jiang not cluster-adjusted in figure because ICC is not
known, but adjustment at ICC=0.1: -0.25 [-0.34, -0.17], I2=42%; and
at ICC=0.2: -0.26 [-
0.35, -0.17], I2=42%.
The meta-analysis (Figure 6) shows statistically significant
reduction of dental caries in permanent teeth with
professionally-applied 1.23% APF gel at 3- to 24-month intervals
compared to no treatment, placebo, or
prophylaxis. All application frequencies had statistically
significant overall effects.
Table 10 summarizes the standardized mean differences from all
the studies, separated into those generated
via meta-analysis and those of individual studies (not included
in the meta-analysis).
-
33
Table 10. Summary of standardized mean differences from
meta-analysis and individual studies for professionally-applied APF
gel (1.23% fluoride)
Outcome Measures Number and
Type* of studies Number of
participants**
Standardized Mean Difference [95% Confidence Interval]
(negative favors intervention, positive favors control)
Meta-analysis results:
D(M)FS, increment or incidence, all frequencies
10 RCT59-68, 70 / 2 CCT72-75
4,023 -0.25 [-0.33, -0.16]
Individual trial results:
dmfs increment 1 CCT71 255 -1.51 [-1.79, -1.23]
DMFS + dmfs increment, all stages
1 CCT55 390 -0.84 [-1.05, -0.63]
Root caries DMFS increment, adults older
than 60 1 RCT69 318 -0.22 [-0.44, -0.00]
Notes:* RCT = randomized controlled trial; CCT = controlled
clinical trial; **Using non-cluster-adjusted participant
numbers;
All stages used if cavitated
data not available
Professionally-applied APF gel was shown to have a statistically
significant effect on caries increment for the
mixed dentition55, as well as primary teeth71; however, the
effect on root caries in adults older than 60 was
marginally statistically significant.69
Evidence statements
The panel concluded with low certainty that there is a benefit
of APF gel (1.23% fluoride) application up
to every three months for 4G minutes for caries prevention in
the primary dentition. This statement is
based on one study with a high bias score that included 255
participants.
The panel concluded with moderate certainty that there is a
benefit of APF gel (1.23% fluoride)
application up to every three months for 4G minutes for caries
prevention in the permanent teeth of 6-
14 year olds. This statement is based on meta-analysis of 12
studies with moderate to high bias scores and
including over 4,000 participants; although there was some
inconsistency, there was low statistical
heterogeneity (I2=43) between the studies.
The panel concluded with low certainty that there is a benefit
of APF gel (1.23% fluoride) application 2
times per year for 4G minutes to prevent root caries. This
statement is based on one study with a high bias
score including 318 participants.
G No studies were found on professionally-applied fluoride APF
gels with an application time of less than 3 minutes.
-
34
The panel identified no studies on the effect of 2% NaF gel
meeting study criteria. In addition, the panel
identified no studies of APF gel (1.23% fluoride) on the coronal
surfaces of permanent teeth of adults over the
age of 18.
Evidence profiles: APF gel (1.23% fluoride)
Primary teeth (children under age 6):
Level of certainty: Low
Benefit: Yes (smaller caries increment or incidence with topical
fluoride use). o SMD=-1.51 [-1.79, -1.23]
Adverse events or harms: Potential harms if swallowed
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Potential harms
could outweigh benefits
Strength of clinical recommendation: Expert opinion against
use
Permanent teeth (children):
Level of certainty: Moderate
Benefit: Yes (smaller caries increment or incidence with topical
fluoride use). o SMD=-0.25 [-0.33, -0.16] o PF=0.27 o NNT for
control rate of 1 DMFS per year = 4
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Benefits outweigh
potential harms
Strength of clinical recommendation: In favor Permanent teeth
coronal caries (adults):
Level of certainty: No certainty (no studies)
Benefit: Unknown, but extrapolated from permanent teeth of
children data
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Benefits outweigh
potential harms
Strength of clinical recommendation: Expert opinion for use
Permanent teeth - root caries (adults):
Level of certainty: Low
Benefit: Yes (smaller caries increment or incidence with topical
fluoride use) o SMD=-0.22 [-0.44, 0] o PF=0.24 o NNT for control
rate of 1 DMFS per year = 4
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Benefits outweigh
potential harms
Strength of clinical recommendation: Expert opinion for use
-
35
APF foam (1.23% fluoride)
General summary of results
The panel identified two randomized clinical trials65, 77 that
evaluated APF foam (1.23% fluoride) in children
aged 3-7 years at baseline, one in the primary and the other in
the permanent dentition. The comparison group
received either no treatment or placebo. Both studies were done
in China.
The panel judged the bias score of one77 of the studies to be 9,
while the other65 was judged to be 7. The study
characteristics, bias scores, and the extracted outcomes data
are presented in Tables J through L in Appendix
4. The results for each study are shown in Table 11.
Table 11. Summary of standardized mean differences from
individual studies for APF foam (1.23% fluoride)
Outcome Measures
Number and type* of studies
Number of participants**
Standardized Mean Difference [95% Confidence Interval]
(negative favors intervention, positive favors control)
dmfs increment 1 RCT77 318 -1.26 [-1.50, -1.02]
DMFS increment 1 RCT65 412 -0.14 [-0.34, 0.04] Notes:* RCT =
randomized controlled trial; CCT = controlled clinical trial
(non-randomized); **Using non-cluster adjusted numbers of
participants; Adjustment for cluster randomized trials (Jiang and
Tai) at ICC=0.1: -1.26 [-1.68, -0.84]; at ICC=0.2: -1.25 [-1.79,
-0.71]
Adjustment for cluster randomized trials (Jiang and Bian) at
ICC=0.1: -0.14 [-0.59, 0.31]; at ICC=0.2: -0.14 [-0.75, 0.48]
Evidence statements
The panel concluded with low certainty that there is a benefit
of APF foam (1.23% fluoride) application 2
times per year for 4H minutes for caries prevention in the
primary dentition. This statement is based on
one study with a low bias score including 318 participants.
The panel concluded with low certainty that there is no benefit
of APF foam (1.23% fluoride) application 2
times per year for 4H minutes for caries prevention in the
permanent dentition of children. This
statement is based on one study with a moderate bias score
including 412 participants.
Evidence profiles: APF foam (1.23% fluoride)
Primary teeth (children under age 6):
Level of certainty: Low
Benefit: Yes (smaller caries increment or incidence with topical
fluoride use). o SMD=-1.26 [-1.50, -1.02]
Adverse events or harms: Potential for harm if swallowed
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Potential harms
could outweigh benefits
Strength of clinical recommendation: Expert opinion against
use
H Both studies on professionally-applied fluoride APF foams used
an application time of 4 minutes.
-
36
Permanent teeth (children):
Level of certainty: Low
Benefit: No
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): No benefit
Strength of clinical recommendation: Expert opinion against use
Permanent teeth coronal caries (adults):
Level of certainty: No certainty (no studies)
Benefit: Unknown, but extrapolated from permanent teeth of
children data
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): No benefit
Strength of clinical recommendation: Expert opinion against use
Permanent teeth - root caries (adults):
Level of certainty: No certainty (no studies)
Benefit: Unknown
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Unknown
Strength of clinical recommendation: Panel unable to make a
recommendation
-
37
Prophylaxis pastes containing fluoride
General summary of results
The panel identified three randomized78-80 and three
non-randomized81-83 clinical trials that evaluated the
annual or semiannual application of prophylaxis pastes, most
containing 1.23% fluoride as APF, for caries
prevention. These studies were all conducted in the 1960s-1970s.
The comparison groups received pumice
prophylaxis or placebo paste. All studies except one83 (on
children 3-5 years old at baseline) were on the
permanent teeth of children 8-16 years old at baseline.
The study characteristics, bias scores, and the extracted
outcomes data are presented in Tables M through O
in Appendix 4. All of the studies were conducted in the U.S. The
panel judged five of the studies to have bias
scores ranging from 3 to 5, and one with a bias score of 7.78
These judgments of quality were primarily driven
by lack of randomization; and if randomized, lack of reporting
of the randomization procedure, allocation
concealment, and/or use of intention-to-treat analysis.
The panel combined the results of five of the studies through a
meta-analysis. One of the studies83 was
excluded from the meta-analysis because of clinical
heterogeneity (primary teeth). Two studies80, 81 reported
the results of two examiners separately; to be conservative, the
data from the examiner with the largest
standard deviation were used. Standard deviations were imputed
for two studies.82, 83 Figure 7 presents the
results of the meta-analysis on cavitated lesions of decayed
surfaces. Table 12 summarizes the standardized
mean differences for both primary (one study) and permanent (5
studies) teeth.
Figure 7. Summary of standardized mean differences from
meta-analysis of studies of prophylaxis
pastes containing fluoride on permanent teeth (DMFS)
-
38
Table 12. Summary of standardized mean differences from
meta-analysis and individual studies of
prophylaxis pastes containing fluoride
Outcome Measures
Number and type* of studies
Number of participants
Standardized Mean Difference [95% Confidence Interval]
(negative favors intervention, positive favors control)
Individual study results of primary teeth data
defs increment, cavitated lesions
1 CCT83 40 0.14 [-0.48, 0.76]
Meta-Analysis results of permanent teeth data
DMFS increment, cavitated lesions
3 RCT78-80 and 2 CCT81, 82
2,297 -0.08 [-0.18, 0.02]
Notes:* RCT = randomized controlled trial; CCT = controlled
clinical trial (non-randomized)
Evidence statements
The panel concluded with low certainty that there is no benefit
from prophylaxis paste containing
fluoride application for 4 minutes twice per year for caries
prevention in the primary teeth of 3-5-year-
olds. This statement is based on one small study of 40
participants with a high bias score.
The panel concluded with moderate certainty that there is no
benefit from prophylaxis paste containing
fluoride application for 4 minutes twice per year for caries
prevention in the permanent teeth of 8-16-
year-olds. This statement is based on meta-analysis of six
studies with moderate-to-high bias scores including
almost 2,300 participants that showed low statistical
heterogeneity (I2=35%) but inconsistent beneficial effects.
No studies were identified that tested fluoride prophylaxis
pastes on adult populations for caries preventive
effect.
Evidence profiles: prophylaxis pastes containing fluoride
Primary teeth (children under age 6):
Level of certainty: Low
Benefit: No
Adverse events or harms: Potential for harm if swallowed
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Potential harms
could outweigh benefits
Strength of clinical recommendation: Expert opinion against use
Permanent teeth (children):
Level of certainty: Moderate
Benefit: No
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): No benefit
Strength of clinical recommendation: Against
-
39
Permanent teeth coronal caries (adults): Level of certainty: No
certainty (no studies)
Benefit: Unknown, but extrapolated from permanent teeth of
children data
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): No benefit
Strength of clinical recommendation: Expert opinion against use
Permanent teeth - root caries (adults):
Level of certainty: No certainty (no studies)
Benefit: Unknown
Adverse events or harms: None if used as manufacturers
recommend
Benefit-harm assessment (Net benefit rating): Unknown
Strength of clinical recommendation: Panel unable to make a
recommendation
-
40
Is prophylaxis prior to professional application of topical
fluoride necessary?
General summary of results
The panel identified two randomized84-86 and one non-randomized
87 clinical trials to assess whether
prophylaxis prior to professional application of topical
fluoride impacts efficacy. All studies were of North
American children from 6-14 years of age at baseline. All
studies reported data on permanent teeth, and one84
also reported data on primary teeth. All studies reported
results on prophylaxis prior to APF gel (1.23%
fluoride) application.
The study characteristics, bias scores, and the extracted
outcomes data are presented in Tables P through R
in Appendix 4. Two of the studies were judged to have bias
scores of 3 and 685-87 and the other84 was 7. These
judgments of quality were primarily driven by lack of
randomization; and if randomized, lack of reporting of the
randomization procedure, allocation concealment, blinding, and
use of intention-to-treat analysis.
The panel combined the results on permanent teeth in a
meta-analysis as shown in Fig. 8. Table 13
summarizes the standardized mean differences for both the
primary (one study) and permanent (3 studies)
teeth.
Figure 8. Summary of standardized mean differences from
meta-analysis of studies of prophylaxis
prior to professional application of APF gel (1.23% fluoride) on
pe