Skip to main content
. 2003 Jan 20;2003(1):CD002278. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002278

2. Random‐effects metaregression analyses of prevented fractions: D(M)FS.

Characteristic Number of studies Slope estimate 95% CI Slope interpretation P‐value
Mean baseline caries 67 0.7% (0.07% to 1.3%) Increase in PF per unit increase in mean baseline caries 0.03
Fluoridated water 56 3.2% (‐4% to 11%) Higher PF in presence of water fluoridation 0.4
Background fluorides 56 0.6% (‐6% to 8%) Higher PF in presence of any background fluoride 0.9
Concentration of fluoride 69 8.3% (1% to 16%) Increase in PF per 1000 ppm F 0.03
Frequency of toothbrushing 70 14% (6% to 22%) Increase in PF moving from once to twice a day < 0.0001
Intensity (freq times conc) 69 5.9% (3.0% to 8.9%) Increase in PF equivalent to doubling from once to twice a day and increasing by 1000 ppmF < 0.0001
Mode of use 70 ‐11% (‐18% to ‐4%) Lower PF with unsupervised toothbrushing 0.03
Allocation concealment 70 3.2% (‐7% to 13%) Higher PF with poorly concealed allocation 0.5
Drop out 70 2.6% (0.2% to 5%) Increase in PF per 10 drop outs 0.04
Length of follow up 70 0.8% (‐4.2% to 5.7%) Increase in PF per extra year of follow up 0.8
SMFP vs NaF (indirect comparison) 32 ‐ 2.6% (‐11.8% to 6.5%) PF lower among SMFP trials 0.6
AmF vs NaF (indirect comparison) 15 3.2% (‐11.0% to 17.3%) PF higher among AmF trials 0.7
SnF2 vs NaF (indirect comparison) 29 ‐4.8% (14.1% to 4.5%) PF lower among SnF2 trials 0.3
HHS Vulnerability Disclosure