TITLE: Fluoride Rinse Programs for School Aged Children: A Review of the Clinical Effectiveness and Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental caries (cavities), while entirely preventable, are common in school-aged children. 1,2 Programs targeted at prevention of dental caries in this population involve multiple components, one of which is the optimal use of fluoride. 2 Water fluoridation has been in available for over 50 years and is considered a cornerstone of caries-preventive strategies. 1 In Canada, the majority of the population is exposed to fluoride through foods that contain trace amounts of fluoride and through fluoridated drinking water. 3 Fluoride is also widely available for topical application in toothpastes (dentifrices), mouth rinses, gels and varnishes. 1 Concentrations of topically applied fluoride are higher than those found in water and create a local protective effect on the teeth. 1 Topically, self-applied fluoride is available in toothpaste and mouth rinse formulations. 1 One approach to self-application of fluoride is through mouth rinsing at schools. 1 School fluoride rinse programs generally involve children between the ages of six and eleven years. 1 Once weekly, under supervision, the teeth and mouth are rinsed with a 0.2 % solution of sodium fluoride (NaF), then the rinse is expectorated. 4 In developed countries, the prevalence of dental caries in school-aged children has declined to
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".