A retentive system for intra-oral fluoride release during orthodontic treatment

Screening of fluoride analysis as a biochemical parameter in the orthodontic treatment using fixed appliances

Saliva is a critical and useful biological fluid necessary for good health and for the appropriate execution of mouth activities. Orthodontic biomaterials have a complex relationship with many components, including the oral environment. Treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances may causes dental caries. As a result, it is necessary to comprehend how orthodontic therapy and various fluoride regimens affect the chances of developing dental cavities as well as individual risk factors. Usage of fluoride will tend to reduce the caries in the patients diagnosed with the fixed orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to screen the biochemical parameter of the fluoride levels in the patients undergone and completed the treatment of orthodontic fixed appliances. In this study, 35 patients have been visited on day 1 as well as day 35 and categorized as T₀ and T₁ groups. Saliva samples were collected and fluoride levels were measured between T₀ and T₁ groups. Using the fluoride kit with the spectrophotometer, fluoride levels were measured. The results confirmed similar fluoride levels between T₀ (26.11 ± 4.86) and T₁ (27.71 ± 4.40) groups. There was no significant association observed in this study (p = 0.56). Fluoride might have no role in the patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.

Fluorides for preventing early tooth decay (demineralised lesions) during fixed brace treatment

BACKGROUND

Early dental decay or demineralised lesions (DLs, also known as white spot lesions) can appear on teeth during fixed orthodontic (brace) treatment. Fluoride reduces decay in susceptible individuals, including orthodontic patients. This review compared various forms of topical fluoride to prevent the development of DLs during orthodontic treatment. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate whether topical fluoride reduces the proportion of orthodontic patients with new DLs after fixed appliances. The secondary objectives were to examine the effectiveness of different modes of topical fluoride delivery in reducing the proportions of orthodontic patients with new DLs, as well as the severity of lesions, in terms of number, size and colour. Participant-assessed outcomes, such as perception of DLs, and oral health-related quality of life data were to be included, as would reports of adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 1 February 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 1 February 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 1 February 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 1 February 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group, randomised controlled trials comparing the use of a fluoride-containing product versus a placebo, no treatment or a different type of fluoride treatment, in which the outcome of enamel demineralisation was assessed at the start and at the end of orthodontic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently, in duplicate, conducted risk of bias assessments and extracted data. Authors of trials were contacted to obtain missing data or to ask for clarification of aspects of trial methodology. Cochrane's statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 10 studies and contains data from nine studies, comparing eight interventions, involving 1798 randomised participants (1580 analysed). One report contained insufficient information and the authors have been contacted. We assessed two studies as at low risk of bias, six at unclear risk of bias, and two at high risk of bias. Two placebo (non-fluoride) controlled studies, at low risk of bias, investigated the professional application of varnish (7700 or 10,000 parts per million (ppm) fluoride (F)), every six weeks and found insufficient evidence of a difference regarding its effectiveness in preventing new DLs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 1.93; 405 participants; low-certainty evidence). One placebo (non-fluoride) controlled study, at unclear risk of bias, provides a low level of certainty that fluoride foam (12,300 ppm F), professionally applied every two months, may reduce the incidence of new DLs (12% versus 49%) after fixed orthodontic treatment (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.57; 95 participants). One study, at unclear risk of bias, also provides a low level of certainty that use of a high-concentration fluoride toothpaste (5000 ppm F) by patients may reduce the incidence of new DLs (18% versus 27%) compared with a conventional fluoride toothpaste (1450 ppm F) (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.00; 380 participants). There was no evidence for a difference in the proportions of orthodontic patients with new DLs on the teeth after treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances for the following comparisons: - an amine fluoride and stannous fluoride toothpaste/mouthrinse combination versus a sodium fluoride toothpaste/mouthrinse, - an amine fluoride gel versus a non-fluoride placebo applied by participants at home once a week and by professional application every three months, - resin-modified glass ionomer cement versus light-cured composite resin for bonding orthodontic brackets, - a 250 ppm F mouthrinse versus 0 ppm F placebo mouthrinse, - the use of an intraoral fluoride-releasing glass bead device attached to the brace versus a daily fluoride mouthrinse. The last two comparisons involved studies that were assessed at high risk of bias, because a substantial number of participants were lost to follow-up. Unfortunately, although the internal validity and hence the quality of the studies has improved since the first version of the review, they have compared different interventions; therefore, the findings are only considered to provide low level of certainty, because none has been replicated by follow-up studies, in different settings, to confirm external validity. A patient-reported outcome, such as concern about the aesthetics of any DLs, was still not included as an outcome in any study. Reports of adverse effects from topical fluoride applications were rare and unlikely to be significant. One study involving fluoride-containing glass beads reported numerous breakages.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found a low level of certainty that 12,300 ppm F foam applied by a professional every 6 to 8 weeks throughout fixed orthodontic treatment, might be effective in reducing the proportion of orthodontic patients with new DLs. In addition, there is a low level of certainty that the patient use of a high fluoride toothpaste (5000 ppm F) throughout orthodontic treatment, might be more effective than a conventional fluoride toothpaste. These two comparisons were based on single studies. There was insufficient evidence of a difference regarding the professional application of fluoride varnish (7700 or 10,000 ppm F). Further adequately powered, randomised controlled trials are required to increase the certainty of these findings and to determine the best means of preventing DLs in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. The most accurate means of assessing adherence with the use of fluoride products by patients and any possible adverse effects also need to be considered. Future studies should follow up participants beyond the end of orthodontic treatment to determine the effect of DLs on patient satisfaction with treatment.

Slow-release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay

BACKGROUND

Slow-release fluoride devices have been investigated as a potentially cost-effective method of reducing dental caries in people with high risk of disease. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2006 and previously updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of slow-release fluoride devices on preventing, arresting, or reversing the progression of carious lesions on all surface types of primary (deciduous) and permanent teeth.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 23 January 2018); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 23 January 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 23 January 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 23 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (23 January 2018). We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing slow-release fluoride devices with an alternative fluoride treatment, placebo, or no intervention in all age groups. The main outcome measures sought were changes in numbers of decayed, missing, and filled teeth or surfaces (DMFT/DMFS in permanent teeth or dmft/dmfs in primary teeth), and progression of carious lesions through enamel and into dentine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted data collection and analysis using standard Cochrane review methods. At least two review authors independently performed all the key steps in the review such as screening of abstracts, application of inclusion criteria, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We resolved discrepancies through discussions or arbitration by a third or fourth review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no evidence comparing slow-release fluoride devices against other types of fluoride therapy.We found only one double-blind RCT involving 174 children comparing a slow-release fluoride device (glass beads with fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth) against control (glass beads without fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth). This study was assessed to be at high risk of bias. The study recruited children from seven schools in an area of deprivation that had low levels of fluoride in the water. The mean age at the beginning of the study was 8.8 years and at the termination was 10.9 years. DMFT in permanent teeth or dmft in primary teeth was greater than one at the start of the study and greater than one million colony-forming units of Streptococcus mutans per millilitre of saliva.Although 132 children were still included in the trial at the two-year completion point, examination and statistical analysis was performed on only the 63 children (31 in intervention group, 32 in control group) who had retained the beads (retention rate was 47.7% at 2 years). Among these 63 children, caries increment was reported to be statistically significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (DMFT: mean difference -0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.21; DMFS: mean difference -1.52, 95% CI -2.68 to -0.36 (very low-quality evidence)). Although this difference was clinically significant, it only holds true for those children who maintain the fluoride beads; over 50% of children did not retain the beads.Harms were not reported within the trial report. Evidence for other outcomes sought in this review (progression to of caries lesion, dental pain, healthcare utilisation data) were also not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine the caries-inhibiting effect of slow-release fluoride glass beads. The body of evidence available is of very low quality and there is a potential overestimation of benefit to the average child. The applicability of the findings to the wider population is unclear; the study had included children from a deprived area that had low levels of fluoride in drinking water, and were considered at high risk of caries. In addition, the evidence was only obtained from children who still had the bead attached at 2 years (48% of all available children); children who had lost their slow-release fluoride devices earlier might not have benefited as much from the devices.

Prevention and Treatment of White Spot Lesions in Orthodontic Patients

Decalcification of enamel, appearing as white spot lesions (WSLs), around fixed orthodontic appliances is a major challenge during and after fixed orthodontic treatment by considering the fact that the goal of orthodontic treatment is to enhance facial and dental esthetic appearance. Banded or bonded teeth exhibit a significantly higher rate of WSLs compared to the controls with no braces as fixed appliances and the bonding materials promote retention of biofilms. These lesions are managed in the first step by establishing good oral hygiene habits and prophylaxis with topical fluorides, including high-fluoride toothpastes, fluoride mouthwashes, gels, varnishes, fluoride-containing bonding materials, and elastic ligatures. Recently, other materials and methods have been recommended, including the application of casein phosphopeptides-amorphous calcium phosphate, antiseptics, probiotics, polyols, sealants, laser, tooth bleaching agents, resin infiltration, and microabrasion. This article reviews the currently used methods to manage enamel demineralization during and after orthodontic treatment and the risk factors and preventive measures based on the latest evidence.

Slow-release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay

BACKGROUND

Slow-release fluoride devices have been investigated as a potentially cost-effective method of reducing dental caries in people with high risk of disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of slow-release fluoride devices on preventing, arresting, or reversing the progression of carious lesions on all surface types of primary (deciduous) and permanent teeth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 13 August 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 13 August 2014), and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 13 August 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.We first published the review in 2006. The update in 2013 found 302 abstracts, but none of these met the inclusion criteria of the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing slow-release fluoride devices with an alternative fluoride treatment, placebo, or no intervention in all age groups. The main outcomes measures sought were changes in numbers of decayed, missing, and filled teeth or surfaces (DMFT/DMFS in permanent teeth or dmft/dmfs in primary teeth), and progression of carious lesions through enamel and into dentine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted data collection and analysis using standard Cochrane review methods. At least two review authors independently performed all the key steps in the review such as screening of abstracts, application of inclusion criteria, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We resolved discrepancies through discussions or arbitration by a third or fourth review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no evidence comparing slow-release fluoride devices against other types of fluoride therapy.We found only one double-blind RCT involving 174 children comparing a slow-release fluoride device (glass beads with fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth) against control (glass beads without fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth). This study was assessed to be at high risk of bias. The study recruited children from seven schools in an area of deprivation that had low levels of fluoride in the water. The mean age at the beginning of the study was 8.8 years and at the termination was 10.9 years. DMFT in permanent teeth or dmft in primary teeth was greater than one at the start of the study and greater than one million colony-forming units of Streptococcus mutans per millilitre of saliva.Although 132 children were still included in the trial at the two-year completion point, examination and statistical analysis was performed on only the 63 children (31 in intervention group, 32 in control group) who had retained the beads (retention rate was 47.7% at two years). Among these 63 children, caries increment was reported to be statistically significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (DMFT: mean difference -0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.21; DMFS: mean difference -1.52, 95% CI -2.68 to -0.36 (very low quality evidence)). Although this difference was clinically significant, it only holds true for those children who maintain the fluoride beads; over 50% of children did not retain the beads.Harms were not reported within the trial report. Evidence for other outcomes sought in this review (progression to of caries lesion, dental pain, healthcare utilisation data) were also not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficeint evidence to determine the caries-inhibiting effect of slow-release fluoride glass beads. The body of evidence available is of very low quality and there is a potential overestimation of benefit to the average child. The applicability of the findings to the wider population is unclear; the study had included children from a deprived area that had low levels of fluoride in drinking water, and were considered at high risk of carries. In addition, the evidence was only obtained from children who still had the bead attached at two years (48% of all available children); children who had lost their slow-release fluoride devices earlier might not have benefited as much from the devices.

Fluorides for the prevention of early tooth decay (demineralised white lesions) during fixed brace treatment

BACKGROUND

Demineralised white lesions (DWLs) can appear on teeth during fixed brace treatment because of early decay around the brackets that attach the braces to the teeth. Fluoride is effective in reducing decay in susceptible individuals in the general population. Individuals receiving orthodontic treatment may be prescribed various forms of fluoride treatment. This review compares the effects of various forms of fluoride used during orthodontic treatment on the development of DWLs. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the effects of fluoride in reducing the incidence of DWLs on the teeth during orthodontic treatment.The secondary objectives were to examine the effectiveness of different modes of fluoride delivery in reducing the incidence of DWLs, as well as the size of lesions. Participant-assessed outcomes, such as perception of DWLs, and oral health-related quality of life data were to be included, as would reports of adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 31 January 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 31 January 2013); and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 31 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials if they met the following criteria: (1) parallel-group randomised clinical trials comparing the use of a fluoride-containing product versus placebo, no treatment or a different type of fluoride treatment, in which (2) the outcome of enamel demineralisation was assessed at the start and at the end of orthodontic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently, in duplicate, conducted risk of bias assessments and extracted data. Authors of trials were contacted to obtain missing data or to ask for clarification of aspects of trial methodology. The Cochrane Collaboration's statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

For the 2013 update of this review, three changes were made to the protocol regarding inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies included in the previous version of the review were excluded from this update for the following reasons: five previously included studies were quasi-randomised, a further five were split-mouth studies, three measured outcomes on extracted teeth only and in one, the same fluoride intervention was used in each intervention group of the study.Three studies and 458 participants were included in this updated review. One study was assessed at low risk of bias for all domains, in one study the risk of bias was unclear and in the remaining study, the risk of bias was high.One placebo-controlled study of fluoride varnish applied every six weeks (253 participants, low risk of bias), provided moderate-quality evidence of an almost 70% reduction in DWLs (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.44, P value < 0.001). This finding is considered to provide moderate-quality evidence for this intervention because it has not yet been replicated by further studies in orthodontic participants.One study compared two different formulations of fluoride toothpaste and mouthrinse prescribed for participants undergoing orthodontic treatment (97 participants, unclear risk of bias) and found no difference between an amine fluoride and stannous fluoride toothpaste/mouthrinse combination and a sodium fluoride toothpaste/mouthrinse combination for the outcomes of white spot index, visible plaque index and gingival bleeding index.One small study (37 participants) compared the use of an intraoral fluoride-releasing glass bead device attached to the brace versus a daily fluoride mouthrinse. The study was assessed at high risk of bias because a substantial number of participants were lost to follow-up, and compliance with use of the mouthrinse was not measured.Neither secondary outcomes of this review nor adverse effects of interventions were reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found some moderate evidence that fluoride varnish applied every six weeks at the time of orthodontic review during treatment is effective, but this finding is based on a single study. Further adequately powered, double-blind, randomised controlled trials are required to determine the best means of preventing DWLs in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment and the most accurate means of assessing compliance with treatment and possible adverse effects. Future studies should follow up participants beyond the end of orthodontic treatment to determine the effect of DWLs on participant satisfaction with treatment.

Iatrogenic possibilities of orthodontic treatment and modalities of prevention

The benefits of orthodontic treatment are numerous and in most cases, the benefits outweigh the possible disadvantages. Orthodontic treatment can play an important role in enhancing esthetics, function, and self-esteem in patients. However, it carries with it the risks of enamel demineralization, tissue damage, root resorption, open gingival embrasures in the form of triangular spaces, allergic reactions to nickel, and treatment failure in the form of relapse. These potential complications are easily avoidable by undertaking certain precautions and timely interventions by both the orthodontist and the patient. The orthodontist must ensure that the patient is aware of the associated risks and stress the importance of the patient's role in preventing these untoward outcomes. The decision whether to proceed with the orthodontic treatment is essentially a risk-benefit analysis, where the perceived benefits of commencing treatment outweigh the potential risks. This article provides an overview of the iatrogenic possibilities of orthodontic treatment and the role of the patient as well as the orthodontist in preventing the associated risks.

Intraoral Fluoride-Releasing Devices: A Literature Review

Dental caries still continues to be a problem for majority of the individuals and it can be a serious problem for medically compromised, developmentally disabled and elderly individuals. Water fluoridation, systemic and topical fluorides are used for past many years to supply supplemental fluoride in order to combat dental caries. The latest fluoride research is investigating the use of slow-release devices for the long-term intraoral provision of fluoride. The present review addresses two main types of intraoral fluoride-releasing devices like the copolymer membrane device, glass device containing fluoride and some variations of these devices. These devices can significantly increase the salivary fluoride concentration without substantially affecting the urinary fluoride levels. A significant number of studies have confirmed that intraoral fluoride-releasing devices have great potential for use in preventing dental caries in children, high-caries-risk groups, and irregular dental attenders in addition to a number of other applications. As most of the studies done on these devices are in vitro and in vivo studies, more well-designed clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the results so that these devices can be used clinically.

How to cite this article

Gambhir RS, Kapoor D, Singh G, Singh J, Kakar H. Intraoral Fluoride-Releasing Devices: A Literature Review. World J Dent 2012;3(4):350-354.

A review of slow-release fluoride devices

BACKGROUND

Fluoride has been used to combat dental caries using a number of different clinical approaches. An exciting relatively new development is fluoride slow-releasing devices that consistently elevate intra-oral fluoride levels of plaque and saliva for prolonged periods of up to two years.

METHODS

The literature on the use of slow-releasing fluoride devices in dentistry were reviewed. A Medline search on key words was carried out. All papers in English were individually reviewed.

RESULTS

Slow-releasing fluoride devices have been shown to be effective in elevating salivary fluoride levels in both animals and human studies and to enhance the remineralisation of dental enamel. They have been demonstrated to be safe to use and without the risk of fluoride toxicity. A double blind randomised clinical trial demonstrated 76% fewer new carious surface increment in high caries-risk children after two years.

CONCLUSIONS

These devices have a number of potential uses in dentistry and in particular have great potential for caries prevention of non-compliant high caries-risk groups.

Slow-release fluoride devices: a literature review

Although the prevalence of caries has decreased dramatically over the past decades, it has become a polarised disease, with most of subjects presenting low caries levels and few individuals accounting for most of the caries affected surfaces. Thus it become evident for the need of clinical approaches directed at these high-risk patients, in order to overcome problems related to compliance and low attendance at dental care centres. Slow-release fluoride devices were developed based on the inverse relationship existing between intra-oral fluoride levels and dental caries experience. The two main types of slow-release devices - copolymer membrane type and glass bead - are addressed in the present review. A substantial number of studies have demonstrated that these devices are effective in raising intra-oral F concentrations at levels able to reduce enamel solubility, resulting in a caries-protective effect. Studies in animals and humans demonstrated that the use of these devices was able to also protect the occlusal surfaces, not normally protected by conventional fluoride regimens. However, retention rates have been shown to be the main problem related to these devices and still requires further improvements. Although the results of these studies are very promising, further randomised clinical trials are needed in order to validate the use of these devices in clinical practice. The concept of continuously providing low levels of intra-oral fluoride has great potential for caries prevention in high caries-risk groups.

Slow-release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay

BACKGROUND

Slow-release fluoride devices have been investigated as a potentially cost-effective method of reducing dental caries in those with high risk of disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of slow-release fluoride devices on preventing, arresting, or reversing the progression of carious lesions on all surface types of deciduous and permanent teeth.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched (up until February 2005) multiple electronic databases (Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE), bibliographic references of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), textbooks, review articles, and meta-analyses. Letters were sent to authors of identified RCTs asking for clarifications and unpublished or ongoing research. Relevant journals were handsearched for more recent reports than those obtained from databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing slow-release fluoride devices with an alternative fluoride treatment, placebo, or no intervention in all age groups. The main outcomes measures sought were changes in numbers of decayed, missing, and filled teeth or surfaces (DMFT/DMFS in permanent teeth or dmft/dmfs in primary teeth) and progression of carious lesions through enamel and into dentine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Abstracts of all reports identified were considered independently by two review authors and full reports obtained of any potentially relevant articles to allow further assessment for relevance and validity. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two and three review authors respectively, with arbitration by the fourth. Where uncertainty existed, authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one trial involving 174 children fully met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Although 132 children were still included in the trial at the 2-year completion point, examination and statistical analysis was performed on only the 63 children who had retained the beads. Thirty-one of these were in the intervention group and 32 in the control group. Amongst these 63 children, caries increment was reported to be statistically significantly lower in the intervention group than in the placebo group (mean difference: -0.72 DMFT, 95% confidence interval -1.23 to -0.21 and -1.52 DMFS, 95% confidence interval -2.68 to -0.36)

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence of a caries-inhibiting effect of slow-release fluoride glass beads. This evidence is regarded as weak and unreliable because the results were from participants selected on the basis of bead retention rather than an intention-to-treat analysis.

Orthodontics. Part 6: Risks in orthodontic treatment

Orthodontics has the potential to cause significant damage to hard and soft tissues. The most important aspect of orthodontic care is to have an extremely high standard of oral hygiene before and during orthodontic treatment. It is also essential that any carious lesions are dealt with before any active treatment starts. Root resorption is a common complication during orthodontic treatment but there is some evidence that once appliances are removed this resorption stops. Some of the risk pointers for root resorption are summarised. Soft tissue damage includes that caused by archwires but also the more harrowing potential for headgears to cause damage to eyes. It is essential that adequate safety measures are included with this type of treatment.

Fluorides for the prevention of white spots on teeth during fixed brace treatment

BACKGROUND

White spots can appear on teeth during fixed brace treatment because of early decay around the brace attachments. Fluoride is effective at reducing decay in susceptible individuals and is routinely prescribed in various different forms to patients during orthodontic treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing white spots during orthodontic treatment and to compare the different modes of delivery of fluoride.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22 August 2002); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2002); MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2003); EMBASE (January 1980 to week July 2003). Authors of trials were contacted for further data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: a randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trial, involving the use of a fluoride-containing product compared with no use or use of a non-fluoride control and enamel demineralisation was assessed during or after orthodontic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six reviewers independently, in duplicate, extracted data. The primary outcome was the difference in the presence or absence of white spots between experimental and control patients for parallel design studies, and between experimental and control quadrants, for split-mouth design studies. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken for the items assessed for quality and publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome of the review was the presence or absence of white spots by patient at the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included any quantitative assessment of enamel mineral loss or lesion depth. Other outcomes such as differences in size and severity of white spots, any patient based outcomes, such as perception of white spots could not be included because there were insufficient data. Fifteen trials, with 723 participants, provided data for this review. None of the studies fulfilled all of the methodological quality assessment criteria. There is some evidence that a daily sodium fluoride mouthrinse reduces the severity of enamel decay surrounding a fixed brace (weighted mean difference for lesion depth -70.0; 95% CI -118.2 to -21.8) and that use of a glass ionomer cement for bracket bonding reduces the prevalence (Peto OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.84) and severity of white spots (weighted mean difference for mineral loss -645 vol%.microm; 95% CI -915 to -375) compared with composite resins.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that the use of topical fluoride or fluoride-containing bonding materials during orthodontic treatment reduces the occurrence and severity of white spot lesions, however there is little evidence as to which method or combination of methods to deliver the fluoride is the most effective. Based on current best practice in other areas of dentistry, for which there is evidence, we recommend that patients with fixed braces rinse daily with a 0.05% sodium fluoride mouthrinse. More high quality, clinical research is required into the different modes of delivering fluoride to the orthodontic patient.

Intraoral fluoride releasing device: a new clinical therapy for dentine sensitivity

BACKGROUND

Dentinal sensitivity (DS) occurs frequently in adult populations in western countries. The purpose of this work was to assess the effectiveness of a new intraoral fluoride releasing device (IFRD) in reducing the level of pain in patients with primary or postsurgical dentine sensitivity.

METHODS

A total of 49 individuals were selected for this study, 15 of whom had post-periodontal surgery dentine sensitivity and 34 with primary sensitivity. An IFRD was applied to 39, while 10 received a placebo device. All individuals in the control group suffered from primary sensitivity. The IFRD used in this study consists of sodium fluoride encased in an acrylic polymer which releases fluoride at a rate of approximately 0.04 mg/day. All patients were asked to rinse with cold water (10 degrees C) and to indicate the level of pain on a 0 to 10 visual analog scale, 0 equalling "no pain" and 10 "maximum bearable pain." All subjects were evaluated once a week during 4 months. Statistical analysis of dentine sensitivity was performed as a univariate study, in relation to the main factors: age, gender, and primary sensitivity or postsurgical etiology.

RESULTS

Symptoms decreased dramatically in all treated patients. The level of sensitivity did not change during the first week after IFRD application, but decreased significantly within the fourth week and remained absent through the duration of the treatment (P <0.01). Difference in sensitivity with respect to different etiology was significant only after 4 weeks (P= 0.01), while there was no statistical difference with respect to age or gender.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper is an initial study to evaluate the effectiveness of the IFRD. The method is fast, painless, inexpensive, and it appears to be suitable as a routine treatment. The presented data support the conclusions at this stage and warrant more comprehensive evaluation.