International dental journal · 2024
A Comparison of the Fluoride 'Paint- On' vs Tray Application Techniques for Enamel Remineralisation.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Keratibumrungpong Keratiporn, Trairatvorakul Chutima, Jirakran Ketsupar, Govitvattana Nattanan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Fluoride gel treatment is not recommended for children < 6 years old due to its potential toxicity. Hence the aim of this study was to compare the effect of 1.23% acidulated-phosphate fluoride (APF) gel paint-on and the conventional tray application techniques on artificial, deciduous enamel carious lesions embedded on wearable appliances.
METHODS: In a randomised crossover study, the volunteer children (n = 29) wore mandibular removable appliances containing embedded tooth specimens with artificial carious lesions. The volunteers had 3 different treatment protocols: (I) 0.4 mL non-fluoride (control) gel, (II) 0.4 mL paint-on 1.23% APF gel or (III) 5 mL 1.23% APF gel, 4 minutes tray application. After 1 hour, the appliances were removed and the specimens underwent an in vitro, 14 days of pH-cycling. The mean percentage reduction in fluorescence (ΔF, %) at baseline (ΔF0) and after the pH-cycling (ΔF1) were determined using quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital analysis. The mean ΔΔF (ΔF1-ΔF0) was calculated to compare the differences between groups.
RESULTS: The mean ΔΔF of groups I to III were -1.42 ± 1.49, 1.06 ± 2.11, and 1.12 ± 3.57 and -1.25 ± 1.44, 1.13 ± 1.84 and 1.44 ± 3.62 for the smooth surface and proximal surface lesions, respectively. The mean ΔΔF in the 2 treatment groups were significantly greater compared with the control group (P < .001). There was no significant difference in ΔΔF between the APF gel tray and paint-on groups either in the smooth surfaces, or the proximal surfaces (P = .629 and P = .613, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Our study, for the first time, indicates that the paint-on application of APF gel or the tray application of APF had a similar enamel remineralisation effect. Clinically, this implies that, particularly in younger children, the paint-on application of fluoride is less cumbersome, and possibly more tolerable with a lesser likelihood of fluoride ingestion than the tray application technique.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trial Registry (https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20190724001).
METHODS: In a randomised crossover study, the volunteer children (n = 29) wore mandibular removable appliances containing embedded tooth specimens with artificial carious lesions. The volunteers had 3 different treatment protocols: (I) 0.4 mL non-fluoride (control) gel, (II) 0.4 mL paint-on 1.23% APF gel or (III) 5 mL 1.23% APF gel, 4 minutes tray application. After 1 hour, the appliances were removed and the specimens underwent an in vitro, 14 days of pH-cycling. The mean percentage reduction in fluorescence (ΔF, %) at baseline (ΔF0) and after the pH-cycling (ΔF1) were determined using quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital analysis. The mean ΔΔF (ΔF1-ΔF0) was calculated to compare the differences between groups.
RESULTS: The mean ΔΔF of groups I to III were -1.42 ± 1.49, 1.06 ± 2.11, and 1.12 ± 3.57 and -1.25 ± 1.44, 1.13 ± 1.84 and 1.44 ± 3.62 for the smooth surface and proximal surface lesions, respectively. The mean ΔΔF in the 2 treatment groups were significantly greater compared with the control group (P < .001). There was no significant difference in ΔΔF between the APF gel tray and paint-on groups either in the smooth surfaces, or the proximal surfaces (P = .629 and P = .613, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Our study, for the first time, indicates that the paint-on application of APF gel or the tray application of APF had a similar enamel remineralisation effect. Clinically, this implies that, particularly in younger children, the paint-on application of fluoride is less cumbersome, and possibly more tolerable with a lesser likelihood of fluoride ingestion than the tray application technique.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trial Registry (https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20190724001).