Marinho Valeria C C, Worthington Helen V, Walsh Tanya, Clarkson Jan E
Clinical and Diagnostic Oral Sciences, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, QueenMary University of London,London,UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 11;2013(7):CD002279. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002279.pub2.
Topically-applied fluoride varnishes have been used extensively as an operator-applied caries-preventive intervention for over three decades. This review updates the first Cochrane review of fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents, which was first published in 2002.
To determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride varnishes in preventing dental caries in children and adolescents, and to examine factors potentially modifying their effect.
We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 13 May 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 13 May 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 13 May 2013), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 13 May 2013), LILACS and BBO via the BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 13 May 2013), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 13 May 2013), and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1945 to 13 May 2013). A search for ongoing trials was undertaken on ClinicalTrials.gov on 13 May 2013. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication in the search of the electronic databases.
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials with blind outcome assessment used or indicated, comparing topically-applied fluoride varnish with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years during at least one year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces in both permanent (D(M)FS) and primary (d(e/m)fs) teeth.
At least two review authors assessed all search results, extracted data and undertook risk of bias independently. Study authors were contacted for additional information. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction, that is the difference in mean caries increments between the treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. The caries increments nearest to three years were used from each included study. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed where data could be pooled. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random-effects meta-regression analyses. Adverse effects information was collected from the included trials.
Twenty-two trials with 12,455 participants randomised (9595 used in analyses) were included. For the 13 that contributed data for the permanent tooth surfaces meta-analysis, the pooled D(M)FS prevented fraction estimate comparing fluoride varnish with placebo or no treatment was 43% (95% confidence interval (CI) 30% to 57%; P < 0.0001). There was substantial heterogeneity, confirmed statistically (P < 0.0001; I(2) = 75%), however this body of evidence was assessed as of moderate quality. The pooled d(e/m)fs prevented fraction estimate was 37% (95% CI 24% to 51%; P < 0.0001) for the 10 trials that contributed data for the primary tooth surfaces meta-analysis, also with some heterogeneity (P = 0.009; I(2) = 59%). Once again this body of evidence was assessed as of moderate quality. No significant association between estimates of D(M)FS or d(e/m)fs prevented fractions and the pre-specified factors of baseline caries severity, background exposure to fluorides, application features such as prior prophylaxis, concentration of fluoride, frequency of application were found. There was also no significant association between estimates of D(M)FS or d(e/m)fs prevented fractions and the post hoc factors: whether a placebo or no treatment control was used, length of follow-up, or whether individual or cluster randomisation was used, in the meta-regression models. A funnel plot of the trials in the main meta-analyses indicated no clear relationship between prevented fraction and study precision. In both methods, power is limited when few trials are included. There was little information concerning possible adverse effects or acceptability of treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions of this updated review remain the same as those when it was first published. The review suggests a substantial caries-inhibiting effect of fluoride varnish in both permanent and primary teeth, however the quality of the evidence was assessed as moderate, as it included mainly high risk of bias studies, with considerable heterogeneity.
外用氟化物漆作为一种由操作人员实施的防龋干预措施,已广泛使用了三十多年。本综述更新了Cochrane系统评价首次发表于2002年的关于氟化物漆预防儿童和青少年龋齿的内容。
确定氟化物漆预防儿童和青少年龋齿的有效性和安全性,并研究可能影响其效果的因素。
我们检索了Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册库(截至2013年5月13日)、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2013年第4期)、通过OVID检索的MEDLINE(1946年至2013年5月13日)、通过OVID检索的EMBASE(1980年至2013年5月13日)、通过EBSCO检索的CINAHL(1980年至2013年5月13日)、通过BIREME虚拟健康图书馆检索的LILACS和BBO(1980年至2013年5月13日)、ProQuest学位论文和论文集(1861年至2013年5月13日)以及科学网会议论文集(1945年至2013年5月13日)。2013年5月13日在ClinicalTrials.gov上检索了正在进行的试验。在电子数据库检索中,对语言和发表日期没有限制。
采用或表明采用盲法评估结局的随机或半随机对照试验,比较外用氟化物漆与安慰剂或未治疗对16岁及以下儿童至少一年的效果。主要结局是通过恒牙(D(M)FS)和乳牙(d(e/m)fs)龋坏、缺失和充填牙面的变化来测量的龋增量。
至少两名综述作者独立评估所有检索结果、提取数据并进行偏倚风险评估。与研究作者联系以获取更多信息。主要效应量是预防率,即治疗组和对照组平均龋增量的差异,以对照组平均增量的百分比表示。从每项纳入研究中使用最接近三年的龋增量。在数据可合并的情况下进行随机效应荟萃分析。在随机效应荟萃回归分析中检查异质性的潜在来源。从纳入试验中收集不良反应信息。
纳入了22项试验,共12455名参与者随机分组(分析中使用了9595名)。对于为恒牙面荟萃分析提供数据的13项试验,比较氟化物漆与安慰剂或未治疗的合并D(M)FS预防率估计值为43%(95%置信区间(CI)30%至57%;P<0.0001)。存在显著异质性,经统计学确认(P<0.0001;I² = 75%),然而这组证据被评估为中等质量。为乳牙面荟萃分析提供数据的10项试验的合并d(e/m)fs预防率估计值为37%(95%CI 24%至51%;P<0.0001),也存在一些异质性(P = 0.009;I² = 59%)。这组证据再次被评估为中等质量。未发现D(M)FS或d(e/m)fs预防率估计值与基线龋严重程度、氟化物背景暴露、应用特征(如预防性治疗)、氟化物浓度、应用频率等预先设定的因素之间存在显著关联。在荟萃回归模型中,D(M)FS或d(e/m)fs预防率估计值与事后因素(是否使用安慰剂或未治疗对照、随访时间长度、是否采用个体或整群随机分组)之间也没有显著关联。主要荟萃分析中试验的漏斗图表明预防率与研究精度之间没有明确关系。在这两种方法中,当纳入的试验较少时,效能有限。关于可能的不良反应或治疗可接受性的信息很少。
本次更新综述的结论与首次发表时相同。该综述表明氟化物漆对恒牙和乳牙均有显著的防龋作用,然而证据质量被评估为中等,因为主要包括偏倚风险较高的研究,且存在相当大的异质性。