Suppr超能文献

在6岁以下儿童中使用高氟浓度的含氟补充剂可能会增加氟中毒的风险。

Using a fluoridated supplement with a high fluoride concentration in children aged under 6 years may increase the risk of fluorosis.

作者信息

Rasines Graciela

机构信息

Evidence-based Dentistry Commission, Dental Association of Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

出版信息

Evid Based Dent. 2010;11(1):8-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400699.

Abstract

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, BIOSIS, Dissertation Abstracts and LILACS/BBO databases were searched. Also, reference lists from relevant articles and five journals (Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Caries Research, Journal of Dental Research, British Dental Journal, Journal of Public Health Dentistry) were searched by hand, and experts in the field of preventive dentistry and oral epidemiology contacted.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies [randomised controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCT, cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional surveys] were selected if they had included children under the age of 6 years when topical fluorides were administered, and in which fluoride toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels, foams, paint-on solutions and varnishes were compared with an alternative fluoride treatment, placebo or no intervention group.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data from all selected studies were extracted by two review authors. Risk ratios (RR) for controlled, prospective studies and odds ratios (OR) for case-control studies or cross-sectional surveys were extracted or calculated. Where both adjusted and unadjusted risk ratios or OR were presented, the adjusted value was included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

From 3573 identified papers, 25 studies were included: two RCT, one cohort study, six case-control studies and 16 cross-sectional surveys. Only one RCT was judged to be at low risk of bias. The other RCT and all observational studies were judged to be at moderate to high risk of bias. Studies were included in four intervention/ exposure comparisons. A statistically significant reduction in fluorosis was found if brushing of a child's teeth with fluoride toothpaste commenced after the age of 12 months [OR, 0.70; random-effects 95% confidence interval (CI) for topical fluoride, 0.57-0.88; data from observational studies]. Inconsistent but statistically significant associations were found between occurrence of fluorosis and starting use of fluoride toothpaste/ toothbrushing before or after the age of 24 months (data from observational studies). From the RCT, use of higher concentrations of fluoride was associated with an increased risk of fluorosis. No significant association between the frequency of toothbrushing or the amount of fluoride toothpaste used and fluorosis was found.

CONCLUSIONS

There should be a balanced consideration of the benefits of topical fluorides in caries prevention and the risk of the development of fluorosis. Most of the available evidence focuses on mild fluorosis. There is weak unreliable evidence that starting the use of fluoride toothpaste in children aged <12 months may be associated with an increased risk of fluorosis. The evidence if use begins between the age of 12 and 24 months is equivocal. If the risk of fluorosis is of concern, the fluoride level of toothpaste for young children (under 6 years of age) is recommended to be lower than 1000 parts per million (ppm). More evidence from studies with low risk of bias is needed. Future trials assessing the effectiveness of different types of topical fluorides (including toothpastes, gels, varnishes and mouthrinses) or different concentrations or both should ensure that they include an adequate followup period in order to collect data on potential fluorosis. As it is unethical to propose RCT to assess fluorosis itself, further observational studies will necessarily be undertaken in this area. Attention does, however, need to be given to the choice of study design, bearing in mind that prospective, controlled studies will be less susceptible to bias than retrospective and/ or uncontrolled studies.

摘要

数据来源

检索了Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库、医学期刊数据库(Medline)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)、生物学文摘数据库(BIOSIS)、学位论文摘要数据库以及拉丁美洲和加勒比地区健康科学数据库(LILACS/BBO)。此外,还手动检索了相关文章及五种期刊(《社区牙科与口腔流行病学》《龋病研究》《牙科研究杂志》《英国牙科杂志》《公共卫生牙科杂志》)的参考文献列表,并联系了预防牙科和口腔流行病学领域的专家。

研究选择

纳入的研究包括随机对照试验(RCT)、半随机对照试验、队列研究、病例对照研究和横断面调查,这些研究需纳入了在使用局部用氟化物时年龄在6岁以下的儿童,且将含氟牙膏、漱口水、凝胶、泡沫剂、涂抹液和氟化物 varnish与替代氟化物治疗、安慰剂或无干预组进行了比较。

数据提取与合成

由两位综述作者提取所有纳入研究的数据。提取或计算对照前瞻性研究的风险比(RR)以及病例对照研究或横断面调查的比值比(OR)。若同时给出了调整和未调整的风险比或OR,则在荟萃分析中纳入调整后的值。

结果

在3573篇已识别的论文中,纳入了25项研究:两项RCT、一项队列研究、六项病例对照研究和16项横断面调查。仅一项RCT被判定为低偏倚风险。另一项RCT和所有观察性研究被判定为中度至高度偏倚风险。研究纳入了四项干预/暴露比较。如果在12个月龄后开始用含氟牙膏刷牙,氟斑牙的发生率有统计学意义的降低[OR,0.70;局部用氟化物的随机效应95%置信区间(CI),0.57 - 0.88;观察性研究数据]。在氟斑牙的发生与在24个月龄之前或之后开始使用含氟牙膏/刷牙之间发现了不一致但有统计学意义的关联(观察性研究数据)。从RCT来看,使用较高浓度的氟化物与氟斑牙风险增加相关。未发现刷牙频率或所用含氟牙膏量与氟斑牙之间有显著关联。

结论

应在预防龋齿中局部用氟化物的益处与氟斑牙发生风险之间进行权衡考虑。现有多数证据聚焦于轻度氟斑牙。有微弱且不可靠的证据表明,在12个月龄以下儿童开始使用含氟牙膏可能与氟斑牙风险增加相关。在12至24个月龄开始使用的证据不明确。如果关注氟斑牙风险,建议6岁以下幼儿使用的牙膏氟含量低于百万分之一千(ppm)。需要更多来自低偏倚风险研究的证据。未来评估不同类型局部用氟化物(包括牙膏、凝胶、varnish和漱口水)或不同浓度或两者的有效性的试验应确保有足够的随访期,以便收集有关潜在氟斑牙的数据。由于提出RCT来评估氟斑牙本身不符合伦理,因此该领域必然会开展更多观察性研究。然而,需要关注研究设计的选择,要记住前瞻性对照研究比回顾性和/或非对照研究更不易产生偏倚。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验