↓ Skip to main content

Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
60 tweeters
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 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
Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003876.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

C Albert Yeung, Lee-Yee Chong, Anne-Marie Glenny

Abstract

Dental caries remains a major public health problem in most industrialised countries, affecting 60% to 90% of schoolchildren and the vast majority of adults. Milk may provide a relatively cost-effective vehicle for fluoride delivery in the prevention of dental caries. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. To assess the effects of milk fluoridation for preventing dental caries at a community level. We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (inception to November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to November 2014) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to November 2014). We also searched the U.S. National Institutes of Health Trials Register (https://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch) for ongoing trials. We did not place any restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with an intervention and follow-up period of at least two years, comparing fluoridated milk with non-fluoridated milk. Two authors independently assessed trial risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We included one unpublished RCT, randomising 180 children aged three years at study commencement. The setting was nursery schools in an area with high prevalence of dental caries and a low level of fluoride in drinking water. Data from 166 participants were available for analysis. The study carried a high risk of bias. After three years, there was a reduction of caries in permanent teeth (mean difference (MD) -0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.24 to -0.02) and in primary teeth (MD -1.14, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.42), as measured by the decayed, missing and filled teeth index (DMFT for permanent teeth and dmft for primary teeth). For primary teeth, this is a substantial reduction, equivalent to a prevented fraction of 31%. For permanent teeth, the disease level was very low in the study, resulting in a small absolute effect size. The included study did not report any other outcomes of interest for this review (adverse events, dental pain, antibiotic use or requirement for general anaesthesia due to dental procedures). There is low quality evidence to suggest fluoridated milk may be beneficial to schoolchildren, contributing to a substantial reduction in dental caries in primary teeth. Due to the low quality of the evidence, further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. There was only one relatively small study, which had important methodological limitations on the data for the effectiveness in reducing caries. Furthermore, there was no information about the potential harms of the intervention. Additional RCTs of high quality are needed before we can draw definitive conclusions about the benefits of milk fluoridation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 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 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 141 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 <1%
Unknown 140 99%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 <1%
Unknown 140 99%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 19 September 2019.
All research outputs
#325,253
of 13,560,201 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#874
of 10,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,062
of 238,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,560,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 238,704 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 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 90% of its contemporaries.