Applied Oral Sciences and Community Dental Care, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Restorative Dental Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 20;6(6):CD007693. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007693.pub3.
This is an update of a review first published in 2010. Use of topical fluoride has become more common over time. Excessive fluoride consumption from topical fluorides in young children could potentially lead to dental fluorosis in permanent teeth.
To describe the relationship between the use of topical fluorides in young children and the risk of developing dental fluorosis in permanent teeth.
We carried out electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles. The latest search date was 28 July 2022.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional surveys comparing fluoride toothpaste, mouth rinses, gels, foams, paint-on solutions, and varnishes to a different fluoride therapy, placebo, or no intervention. Upon the introduction of topical fluorides, the target population was children under six years of age.
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was the percentage prevalence of fluorosis in the permanent teeth. Two authors extracted data from all included studies. In cases where both adjusted and unadjusted risk ratios or odds ratios were reported, we used the adjusted value in the meta-analysis.
We included 43 studies: three RCTs, four cohort studies, 10 case-control studies, and 26 cross-sectional surveys. We judged all three RCTs, one cohort study, one case-control study, and six cross-sectional studies to have some concerns for risk of bias. We judged all other observational studies to be at high risk of bias. We grouped the studies into five comparisons. Comparison 1. Age at which children started toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste Two cohort studies (260 children) provided very uncertain evidence regarding the association between children starting to use fluoride toothpaste for brushing at or before 12 months versus after 12 months and the development of fluorosis (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.18; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, evidence from one cohort study (3939 children) and two cross-sectional studies (1484 children) provided very uncertain evidence regarding the association between children starting to use fluoride toothpaste for brushing before or after the age of 24 months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.13; very low-certainty evidence) or before or after four years (odds ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.35; very low-certainty evidence), respectively. Comparison 2. Frequency of toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste Two case-control studies (258 children) provided very uncertain evidence regarding the association between children brushing less than twice per day versus twice or more per day and the development of fluorosis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.28; very low-certainty evidence). Two cross-sectional surveys (1693 children) demonstrated that brushing less than once per day versus once or more per day may be associated with a decrease in the development of fluorosis in children (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Comparison 3. Amount of fluoride toothpaste used for toothbrushing Two case-control studies (258 children) provided very uncertain evidence regarding the association between children using less than half a brush of toothpaste, versus half or more of the brush, and the development of fluorosis (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence from cross-sectional surveys was also very uncertain (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.28; 3 studies, 2037 children; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 4. Fluoride concentration in toothpaste There was evidence from two RCTs (1968 children) that lower fluoride concentration in the toothpaste used by children under six years of age likely reduces the risk of developing fluorosis: 550 parts per million (ppm) fluoride versus 1000 ppm (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99; moderate-certainty evidence); 440 ppm fluoride versus 1450 ppm (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.89; moderate-certainty evidence). The age at which the toothbrushing commenced was 24 months and 12 months, respectively. Two case-control studies (258 children) provided very uncertain evidence regarding the association between fluoride concentrations under 1000 ppm, versus concentrations of 1000 ppm or above, and the development of fluorosis (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.52; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 5. Age at which topical fluoride varnish was applied There was evidence from one RCT (123 children) that there may be little to no difference between a fluoride varnish application before four years, versus no application, and the development of fluorosis (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence from two cross-sectional surveys (982 children) that the application of topical fluoride varnish before four years of age may be associated with the development of fluorosis in children (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.25).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most evidence identified mild fluorosis as a potential adverse outcome of using topical fluoride at an early age. There is low- to very low-certainty and inconclusive evidence on the risk of having fluorosis in permanent teeth for: when a child starts receiving topical fluoride varnish application; toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste; the amount of toothpaste used by the child; and the frequency of toothbrushing. Moderate-certainty evidence from RCTs showed that children who brushed with 1000 ppm or more fluoride toothpaste from one to two years of age until five to six years of age probably had an increased chance of developing dental fluorosis in permanent teeth. It is unethical to propose new RCTs to assess the development of dental fluorosis. However, future RCTs focusing on dental caries prevention could record children's exposure to topical fluoride sources in early life and evaluate the dental fluorosis in their permanent teeth as a long-term outcome. In the absence of these studies and methods, further research in this area will come from observational studies. Attention needs 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 uncontrolled studies.
这是一篇 2010 年首次发表的综述的更新。随着时间的推移,局部用氟化物的使用变得更加普遍。幼儿中过多的局部氟化物摄入可能导致恒牙氟斑牙。
描述幼儿中局部用氟化物的使用与恒牙氟斑牙发生风险之间的关系。
我们对 Cochrane 口腔健康试验注册库、CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、其他三个数据库和两个试验注册库进行了电子检索。我们检索了相关文章的参考文献列表。最新搜索日期为 2022 年 7 月 28 日。
我们纳入了比较氟化物牙膏、漱口液、凝胶、泡沫、涂药和漆与不同氟化物治疗、安慰剂或不干预的随机对照试验(RCTs)、准 RCTs、队列研究、病例对照研究和横断面调查。在局部氟化物应用引入后,目标人群为 6 岁以下儿童。
我们使用了 Cochrane 预期的标准方法程序,并使用 GRADE 评估证据的确定性。主要结局指标是恒牙氟斑牙的百分比患病率。两位作者从所有纳入的研究中提取数据。如果同时报告了调整和未调整的风险比或比值比,我们在荟萃分析中使用了调整后的数值。
我们纳入了 43 项研究:三项 RCTs、四项队列研究、十项病例对照研究和二十六项横断面调查。我们认为三项 RCTs、一项队列研究、一项病例对照研究和六项横断面研究存在对偏倚风险的一些担忧。我们认为所有其他观察性研究都存在高偏倚风险。我们将研究分为五个比较组。比较 1. 儿童开始用含氟牙膏刷牙的年龄 两项队列研究(260 名儿童)提供了关于儿童在 12 个月或 12 个月之前开始使用含氟牙膏刷牙与氟斑牙发展之间关联的非常不确定的证据(风险比(RR)0.98,95%置信区间(CI)0.81 至 1.18;低确定性证据)。同样,一项队列研究(3939 名儿童)和两项横断面研究(1484 名儿童)的证据也提供了关于儿童在 24 个月或 48 个月之前(RR 0.83,95%CI 0.61 至 1.13;低确定性证据)或在 4 岁之前或之后(比值比(OR)1.60,95%CI 0.77 至 3.35;低确定性证据)开始使用含氟牙膏刷牙的非常不确定的证据。比较 2. 用含氟牙膏刷牙的频率 两项病例对照研究(258 名儿童)提供了关于儿童每天刷牙少于两次与每天刷牙两次或更多次与氟斑牙发展之间关联的非常不确定的证据(OR 1.63,95%CI 0.81 至 3.28;低确定性证据)。两项横断面调查(1693 名儿童)表明,每天刷牙少于一次与每天刷牙一次或更多次相比,可能会降低儿童氟斑牙的发生(OR 0.62,95%CI 0.53 至 0.74;低确定性证据)。比较 3. 用于刷牙的含氟牙膏量 两项病例对照研究(258 名儿童)提供了关于儿童使用少于半管牙膏与使用半管或更多牙膏与氟斑牙发展之间关联的非常不确定的证据(OR 0.77,95%CI 0.41 至 1.46;低确定性证据)。横断面调查的证据也非常不确定(OR 0.92,95%CI 0.66 至 1.28;3 项研究,2037 名儿童;低确定性证据)。比较 4. 牙膏中的氟化物浓度 两项 RCTs(1968 名儿童)中的证据表明,儿童使用的牙膏中氟化物浓度较低可能降低氟斑牙的风险:550 毫克/升(ppm)氟化物与 1000 ppm 氟化物(RR 0.75,95%CI 0.57 至 0.99;中等确定性证据);440 ppm 氟化物与 1450 ppm 氟化物(RR 0.72,95%CI 0.58 至 0.89;中等确定性证据)。刷牙开始的年龄分别为 24 个月和 12 个月。两项病例对照研究(258 名儿童)提供了关于氟化物浓度低于 1000 ppm 与浓度为 1000 ppm 或以上与氟斑牙发展之间关联的非常不确定的证据(OR 0.89,95%CI 0.52 至 1.52;低确定性证据)。比较 5. 局部氟化物漆应用的年龄 一项 RCT(123 名儿童)中的证据表明,氟化物漆在 4 岁之前应用与不应用之间可能几乎没有差异,与氟斑牙的发展有关(RR 0.77,95%CI 0.45 至 1.31;低确定性证据)。两项横断面调查(982 名儿童)的低确定性证据表明,儿童在 4 岁之前应用局部氟化物漆可能与儿童氟斑牙的发生有关(OR 2.18,95%CI 1.46 至 3.25)。
大多数证据将轻度氟斑牙作为儿童早期使用局部氟化物的潜在不良后果。对于儿童开始接受局部氟化物漆应用、用含氟牙膏刷牙、儿童使用的牙膏量和刷牙频率,存在低至非常低确定性和不确定的证据。RCT 的中等确定性证据表明,儿童从 1 至 2 岁开始使用 1000 ppm 或更高浓度的氟化物牙膏,直到 5 至 6 岁,可能更有可能患上恒牙氟斑牙。提出新的 RCT 来评估恒牙氟斑牙的发展是不道德的。然而,未来专注于预防龋齿的 RCT 可能会记录儿童在生命早期接触局部氟化物来源的情况,并将其恒牙氟斑牙的发展作为长期结果进行评估。在缺乏这些研究和方法的情况下,该领域的进一步研究将来自观察性研究。需要注意的是,研究设计的选择,因为前瞻性对照研究比回顾性和非对照研究更不易受到偏倚的影响。