An open-label, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial of different silver diamine fluoride application intervals to arrest dental caries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Non-surgical interventions are preferred to address the widespread issue of early childhood caries (ECC). Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) is an antimicrobial agent and alternative treatment option that can be used to arrest dental decay. While there is optimism with SDF with regard to caries management, there is no true consensus on the number and frequency of applications for children. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of 38% SDF to arrest ECC at three different application regimen intervals. Methods Children with ECC were recruited from community dental clinics into an open-label, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Participants were randomized to one of three groups: visits one month, four months, or six months apart. Participants received applications of 38% SDF, along with 5% sodium fluoride varnish (NaFV), at the first two visits to treat cavitated carious lesions. Lesions were followed and arrest rates were calculated. Lesions were considered arrested if they were hard on probing and black in colour. Statistics included descriptive and bivariate analyses. A p -value of ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Results Eighty-four children participated in the study (49 males and 35 females, mean age: 44.4 ± 14.2 months). Treatment groups were well matched with 28 participants per group. A total of 374 teeth and 505 lesions were followed. Posterior lesions represented only 29.1% of affected surfaces. Almost all SDF treated lesions were arrested for the one-month (98%) and four-month (95.8%) interval groups at the final visit. The six-month group experienced the lowest arrest rates; only 72% of lesions were arrested ( p < 0.001). The duration of application intervals was inversely associated with improvements in arrest rates for all lesions. Conclusions Two applications of 38% SDF and 5% NaFV in one-month and four-month intervals were comparable and very effective in arresting ECC. Applications six months apart were less effective and could be considered inferior treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04054635 (first registered 13/08/2019).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".