PubMed · 16646410
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P Richard Wexler. 2006. Fluoridation.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16646410/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
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 Letters were sent to authors of identified RCTs asking for clarifications and unpublished or ongoing research.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.
BACKGROUND: The treatment of deep dental decay has traditionally involved removal of all the soft demineralised dentine before a filling is placed. However this has been challenged in three groups of studies which involve sealing soft caries into the tooth. The three main groups either remove no caries and seal the decay into the tooth, remove minimal (ultraconservative) caries at the entrance to a cavity and seal the remaining caries in, or remove caries in stages over two visits some months apart to allow the pulp time to lay down reparative dentine (the stepwise excavation technique). OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the incidence of damage or disease of the nerve of the tooth (pulp), progression of decay and longevity of restorations irrespective of whether the removal of decay had been minimal (ultraconservative) or complete. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched. The reference lists in relevant papers were checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing minimal (ultraconservative) caries removal with complete caries removal in unrestored permanent and deciduous teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Outcome measures recorded were exposure of the nerve of the tooth (pulp) during caries removal, patient experience of symptoms of pulpal inflammation or necrosis, progression of caries under the filling, time until the filling was lost or replaced. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies the overall estimate of effect was calculated using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies met the inclusion criteria; two stepwise excavation studies and two ultraconservative caries removal studies. Partial caries removal in symptomless, primary or permanent teeth reduces the risk of pulp exposure. We found no detriment to the patient in terms of pulpal symptoms in this procedure and no reported premature loss or deterioration of the restoration. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review reject the null hypothesis of no difference in the incidence of damage or disease of the nerve of the tooth (pulp) irrespective of whether the removal of decay had been minimal (ultraconservative) or complete and accepts the null hypothesis of no difference in the progression of decay and longevity of restorations. However, the number of included studies is small and differ considerably. Partial caries removal is therefore preferable to complete caries removal in the deep lesion, in order to reduce the risk of carious exposure. However, there is insufficient evidence to know whether it is necessary to re-enter and excavate further but studies that have not re-entered do not report adverse consequences.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article was to review the fluoride release and recharge capabilities, and antibacterial properties, of fluoride-releasing dental restoratives, and discuss the current status concerning the prevention or inhibition of caries development and progression. METHODS: Information from original scientific full papers or reviews listed in PubMed (search term: fluoride release AND (restorative OR glass-ionomer OR compomer OR polyacid-modified composite resin OR composite OR amalgam)), published from 1980 to 2004, was included in the review. Papers dealing with endodontic or orthodontic topics were not taken into consideration. Clinical studies concerning secondary caries development were only included when performed in split-mouth design with an observation period of at least three years. RESULTS: Fluoride-containing dental materials show clear differences in the fluoride release and uptake characteristics. Short- and long-term fluoride releases from restoratives are related to their matrices, setting mechanisms and fluoride content and depend on several environmental conditions. Fluoride-releasing materials may act as a fluoride reservoir and may increase the fluoride level in saliva, plaque and dental hard tissues. However, clinical studies exhibited conflicting data as to whether or not these materials significantly prevent or inhibit secondary caries and affect the growth of caries-associated bacteria compared to non-fluoridated restoratives. SIGNIFICANCE: Fluoride release and uptake characteristics depend on the matrices, fillers and fluoride content as well as on the setting mechanisms and environmental conditions of the restoratives. Fluoride-releasing materials, predominantly glass-ionomers and compomers, did show cariostatic properties and may affect bacterial metabolism under simulated cariogenic conditions in vitro. However, it is not proven by prospective clinical studies whether the incidence of secondary caries can be significantly reduced by the fluoride release of restorative materials.