Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A Comparison of the Fluoride 'Paint- On' vs Tray Application Techniques for Enamel Remineralisation.
Keratibumrungpong, Keratiporn; Trairatvorakul, Chutima; Jirakran, Ketsupar; Govitvattana, Nattanan.
Afiliación
  • Keratibumrungpong K; Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Pediatric Dentistry Residency Program, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • Trairatvorakul C; Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • Jirakran K; Department of Pediatrics, Center of Excellence for Maximizing Children's Developmental Potential, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • Govitvattana N; Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Electronic address: nattanang@gmail.com.
Int Dent J ; 2024 Apr 12.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38614880
ABSTRACT

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).
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Int Dent J Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Tailandia Pais de publicación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Int Dent J Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Tailandia Pais de publicación: Reino Unido