Summary of findings for the main comparison. Fluoridated milk compared to non‐fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries.
| Fluoridated milk compared to non‐fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries | |||||
| Patient or population: general population Settings: community Intervention: fluoridated milk Comparison: non‐fluoridated milk | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Non‐fluoridated milk | Fluoridated milk | ||||
| Caries in permanent teeth: DMFT (3 years) | The mean caries in permanent teeth: DMFT (3 years) in the control group was 0.17 | The mean caries in permanent teeth: DMFT (3 years) in the intervention group was 0.13 lower (0.24 lower to 0.02 lower) | 166 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowa,b | Disease level very low; small absolute effect size |
| Caries in primary teeth: dmft (3 years) | The mean caries in primary teeth: dmft (3 years) in the control group was 3.64 | The mean caries in primary teeth: dmft (3 years) in the intervention group was 1.14 lower (1.86 lower to 0.42 lower) | 166 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowa,b | Substantial effect size equivalent to a 31% prevented fractionc |
| Adverse effects: dental fluorosis | No evidence found | ||||
| Dental pain due to decay | No evidence found | ||||
| Antibiotics due to dental infections | No evidence found | ||||
| Requirement for general anaesthesia due to dental procedures for caries | No evidence found | ||||
| *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; dmft: decayed, missing and filled primary teeth; DMFT: decay, missing and filled permanent teeth. | |||||
| 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. | |||||
aDowngraded for risk of bias: sequence generation method unclear, and participants were not blinded.
bDowngraded for indirectness: applicability of evidence to different settings and populations unclear; there was not much baseline information about the population in the study.
cPrevented fraction (PF), expressed as percentages = (mean increment in control group − mean increment in intervention group)/mean increment in control group) x 100%. PF values between 1% to 10% are considered to be a small effect; between 10% to 20%, a moderate effect; and above 20%, a large or substantial effect.