Comment on the paper entitled 'Arginine and caries prevention: A systematic review'

A selection of abstracts of clinically relevant papers from other journals. The abstracts on this page have been chosen and edited by John R. Radford.

'The Colgate-Palmolive Company is extremely proud of the clinical program ... addition of 1.5% arginine to fluoride toothpaste.'

A systematic review (Caries Res 2016; 50: 383–393) has questioned the findings claiming the efficacy of toothpastes containing 1.5% arginine and fluoride and the research ethics unpinning

these findings. The authors of this letter repost the assertions made in this systematic review. Much of this letter revisits the issues the same authors published (RIGHT OF REPLY – A proud

contribution: DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.6) in response to an OPINION (Br Dent J 2015; 219: 567–569 – two of the authors in the OPINION published in Br Dent J were those who published the

systematic review in Caries Res). The authors of the letter state that this systematic review was 'both out of date and in some instances factually incorrect.' Focusing on the research

ethics, it is stated in the systematic review that several studies used a non-fluoride containing toothpaste as the control; this '...offers poorer protection against caries than the

standard method... violates the basic principles of ethics in research.' Yet the authors of the letter state that permission to carry out these studies was granted by the local ethics

committee [Institutional Review Board (Ethics Committee) of Sichuan University]. The Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects is unequivocal

in stating that the international norms and standards upheld by Research Ethics Committees, '...must not be allowed to reduce or eliminate any of the protections for research subjects...'

(Paragraph 23).'

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: