Fluoride varnish in the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a scientifically current and evidence-based protocol for the use of fluoride varnish for the prevention of dental caries among high-risk children and adolescents. METHODS: Previous systematic reviews on this topic were used as the basis for the current review. Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL and several other relevant bibliographic databases were searched for English-language articles, with human subjects, published from 2000 to 2007. RESULTS: A total of 105 articles were identified by the literature search; relevance was determined by examining the title, abstract and body of the article. Seven original research studies met the inclusion criteria. These articles were read and scored independently by 2 reviewers, and evidence was extracted for systematic review. RECOMMENDATIONS: The following recommendations were developed on the basis of the evidence: 1. For high-risk populations (e.g., people with low socioeconomic status, new immigrants and refugees, First Nations and Inuit children and adolescents), fluoride varnish should be applied twice a year, unless the individual has no risk of caries, as indicated by past and current caries history. This schedule of application would permit sealants to be checked biannually to ensure retention. 2. Single-dose packages of fluoride varnish should be used for children; the varnish in such packages should be stirred vigorously before application, to ensure that any precipitated fluoride is redissolved. 3. There is good evidence of the complementary efficacy of preventive strategies such as sealants and varnish, as well as toothbrushing and nutritional counselling; oral health care programs should therefore include as many complementary strategies as possible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".