↓ Skip to main content

The cariogenicity of commercial infant formulas: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
The cariogenicity of commercial infant formulas: a systematic review
Published in
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40368-016-0228-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. F. Tan, H. J. Tong, X. Y. Lin, B. Mok, C. H. Hong

Abstract

To systematically evaluate the cariogenic potential of various commercially available infant formulas. A literature search was conducted using Pubmed and Scopus databases for articles published between 1966 and November 2014. Reference lists of all eligible studies were searched. Only human studies were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed. Seven of the 83 articles identified were included in this review, of which six studies employed plaque harvesting methods, while one study utilised an intra-oral cariogenicity/in situ model. Three studies compared milk-based formulas (MBFs) and soy-based formulas (SBFs), two compared protein hydrolysate formulas (PHFs) with MBFs and SBFs, four compared formulas with various types of sugar, and two studies compared formulas with varying casein content. Based on a single study, SBFs were significantly more cariogenic than MBFs. Formulas containing only non-milk extrinsic sugars (NMES) and those containing lactose + NMES were found to be significantly more cariogenic than formulas containing only lactose. No significant correlation was found between cariogenicity and casein content in infant formula. The results of studies comparing PHFs with MBFs and SBFs were contradictory. Risk of bias assessment revealed that five studies were at moderate risk of bias, and two were assessed to be at high risk of bias. The result for cariogenicity of various types of infant formulas remains inconclusive, thus no concrete recommendations can be made. Further well-designed studies are needed to clarify the effect of casein content on cariogenicity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Uruguay 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Researcher 4 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 25 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 24 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2019.
All research outputs
#14,263,483
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#132
of 282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,916
of 334,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 282 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,245 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them