Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings ‐ chlorhexidine gel.
| Chlorhexidine gel compared with no treatment for prevention of caries in children and adolescents | ||||||
|
Patient or population: children and adolescents Settings: all Intervention: chlorhexidine gel Comparison: no treatment | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| No treatment | Chlorhexidine | |||||
| Presence of new caries in the primary teeth (24‐months follow‐up) | 16 per 10001 |
16 per 1000 (6 to 45) |
RR 1.00 (0.36 to 2.77) | 487 (2) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝2 very low | Chlorhexidine concentration 0.12% gel |
| 70 per 1000 |
70 per 1000 (25 to 194) |
|||||
|
Mutans streptococci prevalence (24‐months follow‐up) |
180 per 10003 |
227 (171 to 299 |
RR 1.26 (0.95 to 1.66) | 490 (2) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝4 very low | Chlorhexidine concentration 0.12% gel |
| 466 per 10003 | 587 per 1000 (443 to 774) | |||||
| Adverse events (24‐months follow‐up) | Both studies reported there were no adverse events | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; DMFS: decayed, missing and filled surfaces; RR: risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1. Two trials assessed this outcome; the reported risk of caries in the control group was 1.6% and 6.9%.
2. We downgraded the quality of the evidence due to risk of bias (we assessed both studies to be at high risk of bias overall), imprecision of the estimate due to low numbers of events in both the control and intervention groups, and indirectness (infants administered very low daily concentration).
3. Two trials assessed this outcome; the reported risk of mutans streptococci in the control group was 46.6% and 18.1%.
4. We downgraded the quality of the evidence due to risk of bias (we assessed both studies to be at high risk of bias overall), imprecision, and indirectness.