↓ Skip to main content

Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

7 news outlets
5 blogs
203 X users
13 Facebook pages
5 Wikipedia pages
1 Google+ user
4 YouTube creators


206 Dimensions

Readers on

587 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.
Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002284.pub2
Pubmed ID

Valeria CC Marinho, Lee-Yee Chong, Helen V Worthington, Tanya Walsh


Fluoride mouthrinses have been used extensively as a caries-preventive intervention in school-based programmes and by individuals at home. This is an update of the Cochrane review of fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents that was first published in 2003. The primary objective is to determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride mouthrinses in preventing dental caries in the child and adolescent population.The secondary objective is to examine whether the effect of fluoride rinses is influenced by:• initial level of caries severity;• background exposure to fluoride in water (or salt), toothpastes or reported fluoride sources other than the study option(s); or• fluoride concentration (ppm F) or frequency of use (times per year). We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (whole database, to 22 April 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 April 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 22 April 2016), CINAHL EBSCO (the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, 1937 to 22 April 2016), LILACS BIREME (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database, 1982 to 22 April 2016), BBO BIREME (Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia; from 1986 to 22 April 2016), Proquest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 22 April 2016) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 22 April 2016). We undertook a search for ongoing trials on the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching electronic databases. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials where blind outcome assessment was stated or indicated, comparing fluoride mouthrinse with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years of age. Study duration had to be at least one year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces in permanent teeth (D(M)FS). At least two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We contacted study authors for additional information when required. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF), that is, the difference in mean caries increments between treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses where data could be pooled. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity in random-effects metaregression analyses. We collected adverse effects information from the included trials. In this review, we included 37 trials involving 15,813 children and adolescents. All trials tested supervised use of fluoride mouthrinse in schools, with two studies also including home use. Almost all children received a fluoride rinse formulated with sodium fluoride (NaF), mostly on either a daily or weekly/fortnightly basis and at two main strengths, 230 or 900 ppm F, respectively. Most studies (28) were at high risk of bias, and nine were at unclear risk of bias.From the 35 trials (15,305 participants) that contributed data on permanent tooth surface for meta-analysis, the D(M)FS pooled PF was 27% (95% confidence interval (CI), 23% to 30%; I(2) = 42%) (moderate quality evidence). We found no significant association between estimates of D(M)FS prevented fractions and baseline caries severity, background exposure to fluorides, rinsing frequency or fluoride concentration in metaregression analyses. A funnel plot of the 35 studies in the D(M)FS PF meta-analysis indicated no relationship between prevented fraction and study precision (no evidence of reporting bias). The pooled estimate of D(M)FT PF was 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%; I² = 54%), from the 13 trials that contributed data for the permanent teeth meta-analysis (moderate quality evidence).We found limited information concerning possible adverse effects or acceptability of the treatment regimen in the included trials. Three trials incompletely reported data on tooth staining, and one trial incompletely reported information on mucosal irritation/allergic reaction. None of the trials reported on acute adverse symptoms during treatment. This review found that supervised regular use of fluoride mouthrinse by children and adolescents is associated with a large reduction in caries increment in permanent teeth. We are moderately certain of the size of the effect. Most of the evidence evaluated use of fluoride mouthrinse supervised in a school setting, but the findings may be applicable to children in other settings with supervised or unsupervised rinsing, although the size of the caries-preventive effect is less clear. Any future research on fluoride mouthrinses should focus on head-to-head comparisons between different fluoride rinse features or fluoride rinses against other preventive strategies, and should evaluate adverse effects and acceptability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 203 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 587 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 584 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 88 15%
Student > Bachelor 53 9%
Researcher 38 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 35 6%
Other 89 15%
Unknown 246 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 202 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 2%
Social Sciences 13 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 2%
Other 53 9%
Unknown 256 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 234. 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 20 January 2024.
All research outputs
of 26,166,431 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 13,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 383,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,166,431 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
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 383,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.