Doses of fluoride toothpaste for children up to 24 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to test the dose of fluoride toothpaste by parents for their children aged up to 24 months. METHODS: Parents who use fluoride toothpastes for their children were asked to dose two commercially available toothpastes (A and B) with 1000 ppm fluoride each for their children as they would normally do at home. The toothpaste amounts were weighed, and as reference, the weight of an 'optimal' grain of rice-size amount of each toothpaste was used. RESULTS: 61 parents dosed a mean of 0.263 ± 0.172 g toothpaste A and 0.281 ± 0.145 g toothpaste B. The parents' mean doses were 5.9 times higher for toothpaste A and 7.2 times higher for toothpaste B than an 'optimal' grain of rice-size amount (the reference dose as recommended). The difference between parent's and reference dose was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Moreover, 39.3% of parents were not aware about conditions of use and warnings that have to be printed on the package of fluoride toothpastes. CONCLUSION: In this study, parents significantly overdosed the toothpaste for their children. To avoid fluoride intake from toothpaste, parents can choose fluoride-free alternatives for the oral care of their infants and toddlers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".