LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Maney Publishing
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing white spot lesion (WSL) demineralization during orthodontic treatment and compare all modes of fluoride delivery. \ud \ud Data sources: The search strategy for the review was carried out according to the standard Cochrane systematic review methodology. The following databases were searched for RCTs or CCTs: Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied when considering studies to be included. Authors of trials were contacted for further data. \ud \ud Data selection: The primary outcome of the review was the presence or absence of WSL by patient at the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included any quantitative assessment of enamel mineral loss or lesion depth. \ud \ud Data extraction: Six reviewers independently, in duplicate, extracted data, including an assessment of the methodological quality of each trial. \ud \ud Data synthesis: Fifteen trials provided data for this review, although none fulfilled all the methodological quality assessment criteria. One study found that a daily NaF mouthrinse reduced the severity of demineralization surrounding an orthodontic appliance (lesion depth difference –70.0 µm; 95% CI –118.2 to –21.8 µm). One study found that use of a glass ionomer cement (GIC) for bracket bonding reduced the prevalence of WSL (Peto OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.15–0.84) compared with a composite resin. None of the studies fulfilled all of the methodological quality assessment criteria. \ud \ud Conclusions: There is some evidence that the use of a daily NaF mouthrinse or a GIC for bonding brackets might reduce the occurrence and severity of WSL during orthodontic treatment. More high quality, clinical research is required into the different modes of delivering fluoride to the orthodontic patient. \ud
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Gorelick L, Geiger AM, Gwinnett AJ. Incidence of white spot formation after bonding and banding. Am J Orthod 1982; 81: 93-8.
    • 2. Ogaard B. Prevalence of white spot lesions in 19-year-olds: a study on untreated and orthodontically treated persons 5 years after treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 96: 423-7.
    • 3. Margolis HC, Moreno EC. Physicochemical perspectives on the cariostatic mechanisms of systemic and topical fluorides. J Dent Res 1990; 69 Spec No:606-13; discussion 34-6.
    • 4. Marinho VCC, Higgins JPT, Logan S, Sheiham A, Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
    • 5. Cochrane Oral Health Group, http://www.cochrane-oral. man.ac.uk.
    • 6. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. 2001, BMJ Publishing Group: London.
    • 7. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-88.
    • 8. Hirschfield RE. Control of decalcification by use of fluoride mouthrinse. J Dent Child 1978; 45: 458-60.
    • 9. Ogaard B, Arends J, Schuthof J, Rolla G, Ekstrand J, Oliveby A. Action of fluoride on initiation of early enamel caries in vivo. A microradiographical investigation. Caries Res 1986; 20: 270-7.
    • 10. Dyer JR, Shannon IL. MFP versus stannous fluoride mouthrinses for prevention of decalcification in orthodontic patients. J Dent Child 1982; 49: 19-21.
    • 11. Ogaard B, Larsson E, Henriksson T, Birkhed D, Bishara SE. Effects of combined application of antimicrobial and fluoride varnishes in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120: 28-35.
    • 12. Sonis AL, Snell W. An evaluation of a fluoride-releasing, visible light-activated bonding system for orthodontic bracket placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 95: 306-11.
    • 13. Twetman S, McWilliam JS, Hallgren A, Oliveby A. Cariostatic effect of glass ionomer retained orthodontic appliances. An in vivo study. Swed Dent J 1997; 21: 169-75.
    • 14. Marcusson A, Norevall LI, Persson M. White spot reduction when using glass ionomer cement for bonding in orthodontics: a longitudinal and comparative study. Eur J Orthod 1997; 19: 233-42.
    • 15. Chung CK, Millett DT, Creanor SL, Gilmour WH, Foye RH. Fluoride release and cariostatic ability of a compomer and a resin- modified glass ionomer cement used for orthodontic bonding. J Dent 1998; 26: 533-8.
    • 16. Gorton J, Featherstone JD. In vivo inhibition of demineralization around orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123: 10-4.
    • 17. Pascotto RC, Navarro MF, Capelozza Filho L, Cury JA. In vivo effect of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement on enamel demineralization around orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125: 36-41.
    • 18. Arends J, ten Bosch JJ. Demineralization and remineralization evaluation techniques. J Dent Res 1992; 71 Spec No:924-8.
    • 19. Czochrowska E, Ogaard B, Duschner H, Ruben J, Arends J. Cariostatic effect of a light-cured, resinreinforced glass-ionomer for bonding orthodontic brackets in vivo. A combined study using microradiography and confocal laser scanning microscopy. J Orofac Orthop 1998; 59: 265-73.
    • 20. Millett DT, McCluskey LA, McAuley F, Creanor SL, Newell J, Love J. A comparative clinical trial of a compomer and a resin adhesive for orthodontic bonding. Angle Orthod 2000; 70: 233-40.
    • 21. Gillgrass TJ, Benington PC, Millett DT, Newell J, Gilmour WH. Modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation? A comparative clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120: 49-53.
    • 22. Banks PA, Chadwick SM, Asher-McDade C, Wright JL. Fluoride-releasing elastomerics-a prospective controlled clinical trial. Eur J Orthod 2000; 22: 401-7.
    • 23. Marinho VCC, Higgins JPT, Sheiham A, Logan S, Combinations of topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels, varnishes) versus single topical fluoride for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
    • 24. Geiger AM, Gorelick L, Gwinnett AJ, Benson BJ. Reducing white spot lesions in orthodontic populations with fluoride rinsing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 101: 403-7.
    • 25. Angmar-Mansson B, al-Khateeb S, Tranaeus S. Monitoring the caries process. Optical methods for clinical diagnosis and quantification of enamel caries. Eur J Oral Sci 1996; 104: 480-5.
    • 26. Benson PE, Parkin N, Millett DT, Dyer FE, Vine S, Shah A, Fluorides for the prevention of white spots on teeth during fixed brace treatment. In: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
    • 27. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of metaanalyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896-900.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article