Public health ·

Liquid dental treatment stopped progression in some childhood cavities

A randomized trial of 830 children with severe early childhood caries evaluated silver diamine fluoride. At six months, 54% of treated lesions had stopped progressing, compared with 22.5% in the placebo group.

VitalHaber · Updated: 21.10.2026

Health and science communication: Gürkan Özkoç, MD, FACS

A tooth model, toothbrush and silver-colored drop — AI-generated representative illustration.
AI-generated illustration; it does not depict a real patient, study or treatment outcome.

The story in detail

A multicentre trial compared silver diamine fluoride with placebo for severe early childhood tooth decay. It enrolled 830 children and followed outcomes for up to eight months. Six months after the initial application, estimated lesion arrest was 54% with treatment versus 22.5% with placebo. Arrest means stopping progression, not regrowing lost tooth tissue. Pain outcomes did not differ between groups.

The controlled comparison supports a non-invasive option for selected young children, but around 30% did not complete follow-up and long-term outcomes remain outside this study. Suitability depends on a dental assessment. The findings should not be interpreted as instructions for home application or as showing that oral hygiene and other necessary dental treatment can be abandoned.

Study date: 2026-07-27 · Story: 20 October 2026

What was found?

A randomized trial of 830 children with severe early childhood caries evaluated silver diamine fluoride. At six months, 54% of treated lesions had stopped progressing, compared with 22.5% in the placebo group.

What does it mean?

The professionally applied treatment may help control selected cavities in baby teeth without drilling. The outcome was arrested decay, not regrowth of damaged teeth.

Limitations

About 30% of participants were lost to follow-up, and pain did not differ significantly. The treatment can darken decayed tissue and is not suitable for every cavity.

Sources and review scope

Original article (DOI) · Reviewed source 1

The original full-text article was reviewed.

Sources last checked: 20 October 2026.

Editorial expansion: 21.10.2026

Keep this story

Feedback to the editor

Only the editor can read this; it is not a public comment. Do not include personal health information.

Sign in to send feedback

This story provides general information, not individual diagnosis or treatment advice. Findings should be considered within the conditions and limitations of the study.