↓ Skip to main content

Chlorhexidine treatment for the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
85 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
383 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
Chlorhexidine treatment for the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008457.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanya Walsh, Jeronimo M Oliveira-Neto, Deborah Moore

Abstract

Dental caries (tooth decay) is a common disease that is preventable by reducing the dietary intake of free sugars and using topical sodium fluoride products. An antibacterial agent known as chlorhexidine may also help prevent caries. A number of over-the-counter and professionally administered chlorhexidine-based preparations are available in a variety of formulations and in a range of strengths. Although previous reviews have concluded that some formulations of chlorhexidine may be effective in inhibiting the progression of established caries in children, there is currently a lack of evidence to either claim or refute a benefit for its use in preventing dental caries. To assess the effects of chlorhexidine-containing oral products (toothpastes, mouthrinses, varnishes, gels, gums and sprays) on the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents. We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (25 February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 25 February 2015), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 25 February 2015) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 25 February 2015). We handsearched several journals placed no language restrictions on our search. After duplicate citations were removed, the electronic searches retrieved 1075 references to studies. We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the caries preventive effects of chlorhexidine gels, toothpastes, varnishes, mouthrinses, chewing gums or sprays with each other, placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents. We excluded trials with combined interventions of chlorhexidine and fluoride or comparisons between chlorhexidine and fluoride interventions. Two review authors independently extracted trial data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus. We contacted trial authors for clarification or additional study details when necessary. The number of included studies that were suitable for meta-analysis was limited due to the clinical diversity of the included studies with respect to age, composition of intervention, and variation in outcome measures and follow-up. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analysis, we elected to present a narrative synthesis of the results. We included eight RCTs that evaluated the effects of chlorhexidine varnishes (1%, 10% or 40% concentration) and chlorhexidine gel (0.12%) on the primary or permanent teeth, or both, of children from birth to 15 years of age at the start of the study. The studies randomised a total of 2876 participants, of whom 2276 (79%) were evaluated. We assessed six studies as being at high risk of bias overall and two studies as being at unclear risk of bias overall. Follow-up assessment ranged from 6 to 36 months.Six trials compared chlorhexidine varnish with placebo or no treatment. It was possible to pool the data from two trials in the permanent dentition (one study using 10% chlorhexidine and the other, 40%). This led to an increase in the DMFS increment in the varnish group of 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to 1.53; two trials, 690 participants; very low quality evidence). Only one trial (10% concentration chlorhexidine varnish) provided usable data for elevated mutans streptococci levels > 4 with RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, 496 participants; very low quality evidence). One trial measured adverse effects (for example, ulcers or tooth staining) and reported that there were none; another trial reported that no side effects of the treatment were noted. No trials reported on pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction or costs.Two trials compared chlorhexidine gel (0.12% concentration) with no treatment in the primary dentition. The presence of new caries gave rise to a 95% confidence interval that was compatible with either an increase or a decrease in caries incidence (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.77; 487 participants; very low quality evidence). Similarly, data for the effects of chlorhexidine gel on the prevalence of mutans streptococci were inconclusive (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66; two trials, 490 participants; very low quality evidence). Both trials measured adverse effects and did not observe any. Neither of these trials reported on the other secondary outcomes such as measures of pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction or direct and indirect costs of interventions. We found little evidence from the eight trials on varnishes and gels included in this review to either support or refute the assertion that chlorhexidine is more effective than placebo or no treatment in the prevention of caries or the reduction of mutans streptococci levels in children and adolescents. There were no trials on other products containing chlorhexidine such as sprays, toothpastes, chewing gums or mouthrinses. Further high quality research is required, in particular evaluating the effects on both the primary and permanent dentition and using other chlorhexidine-containing oral products.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 383 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Latvia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 380 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 20%
Student > Bachelor 49 13%
Researcher 43 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 10%
Student > Postgraduate 19 5%
Other 72 19%
Unknown 87 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 166 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 9%
Social Sciences 15 4%
Psychology 14 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 3%
Other 50 13%
Unknown 95 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. 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 24 September 2020.
All research outputs
#305,699
of 16,497,411 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#680
of 11,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,306
of 230,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,497,411 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 230,385 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 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 92% of its contemporaries.