↓ Skip to main content

A randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing chlorhexidine gel and low‐dose fluoride toothpaste to prevent early childhood caries

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing chlorhexidine gel and low‐dose fluoride toothpaste to prevent early childhood caries
Published in
International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, June 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-263x.2012.01248.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

MARGARET L. PUKALLUS, KATHRYN A. PLONKA, ADRIAN G. BARNETT, LAURENCE J. WALSH, TREVOR F. HOLCOMBE, W. KIM SEOW

Abstract

OBJECTIVES.  This randomised, controlled trial compared the effectiveness of 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel and 304% fluoride toothpaste to prevent early childhood caries (ECC) in a birth cohort by 24 months. METHODS.  The participants were randomised to receive either (i) twice daily toothbrushing with toothpaste and once daily 0.12% CHX gel (n = 110) or (ii) twice daily toothbrushing with toothpaste only (study controls) (n = 89). The primary outcome measured was caries incidence and the secondary outcome was percentage of children with mutans streptococci (MS). All mothers were contacted by telephone at 6, 12, and 18 months. At 24 months, all children were examined at a community dental clinic. RESULTS.  At 24 months, the caries prevalence was 5% (3/61) in the CHX and 7% (4/58) in the controls (P = 0.7). There were no differences in percentages of MS-positive children between the CHX and control groups (54%vs 53%). Only 20% applied the CHX gel once daily and 80% less than once daily. CONCLUSIONS.  Toothbrushing using 304% fluoride toothpaste with or without the application of chlorhexidine gel (0.12%) reduces ECC from 23% found in the general community to 5-7%. The lack of effect with chlorhexidine is likely to be due to low compliance.

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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 107 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 29 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Unspecified 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 30 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 March 2014.
All research outputs
#16,801,619
of 24,712,008 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry
#407
of 650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,380
of 168,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,712,008 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 168,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.