Action of fluoride on initiation of early enamel caries in vivo. A microradiographical investigation. White spot reduction when using glass ionomer cement for bonding in orthodontics: a longitudinal and comparative study. MFP versus stannous fluoride mouthrinses for prevention of decalcification in orthodontic patients. In vivo inhibition of demineralization around orthodontic brackets. In vivo effect of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement on enamel demineralization around orthodontic brackets. Effects of combined application of antimicrobial and fluoride varnishes in orthodontic patients. Fluoride release and cariostatic ability of a compomer and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement used for orthodontic bonding. A comparative clinical trial of a compomer and a resin adhesive for orthodontic bonding. Control of decalcification by use of fluoride mouthrinse. Cariostatic effect of a light-cured, resin-reinforced glass-ionomer for bonding orthodontic brackets in vivo. A combined study using microradiography and confocal laser scanning microscopy. Fluoride-releasing elastomerics--a prospective controlled clinical trial. Cariostatic effect of glass ionomer retained orthodontic appliances. An in vivo study. An evaluation of a fluoride-releasing, visible light-activated bonding system for orthodontic bracket placement. Modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation? A comparative clinical trial.
nan The aim of this clinical study was to test the benefit from using glass ionomer cement (GIC) instead of a conventional diacrylate in bracket bonding for the prevention of white spot formation. Before treatment 7.2 per cent of all examined surfaces (n = 222) were classified as having white spots. No additional fluoride treatment other than fluoride toothpaste was prescribed. At debonding 8-39 months later, white spots were found in 24 per cent of the surfaces bonded with the cement, significantly lower than the 40.5 per cent bonded with the diacrylate (P < 0.01). At recall 12 months after debonding (examined surfaces n = 214) the frequency of surfaces with white spots was reduced to 22 and 24 per cent respectively. Re-examination after a further 12 months (n = 160) showed that white spot surfaces were less frequent with the cement (16 per cent compared with the diacrylate 29 per cent), but still significantly more frequent in both groups than before treatment. With longer treatment time (17 months) teeth bonded with diacrylate were more frequently affected with white spots (P < 0.05). Neither sex nor age affected the results. It is concluded that the use of a GIC for orthodontic bonding will result in a significant reduction in the number of white spot surfaces at debonding compared with the use of conventional diacrylate. Although markedly reduced in both groups, the number of affected surfaces was still higher 2 years after debonding than before treatment. Twenty-two orthodontic patients in the eleven to fifteen-year age-group participated in a one-year fluoride rinsing program. A 0.1 percent SnF2 solution was compared to a MFP solution containing an equivalent amount of fluoride. A laboratory study evaluated the enamel solubility reducing capacities of the two solutions. Enamel solubility reduction by a two-minute treatment with 0.1 percent SnF2 was 77.8 percent; that for MFP solution was only 13.1 percent. Rinsing daily with SnF2 prevented decalcification completely in twelve patients; two of ten patients rinsing with MFP developed new decalcification during orthodontic treatment. Thus, SnF2 was more effective than MFP in both the laboratory and clinical phases of the study. These results support the requirement for frequent applications, if patients are at advanced risk, and suggest that the method of treatment is at least as important as the choice of specific fluoride. Demineralization around orthodontic appliances is a problem. Suboptimal oral hygiene, long intervals between appointments, and potentially poor patient cooperation with using fluoride dentifrices and mouth rinses necessitate a compliance-free means of preventing tooth decay. The hypothesis of this study was that fluoride released by glass ionomer cement inhibits the formation of carious lesions around orthodontic brackets in vivo. Brackets were bonded on 2 first premolars in 21 randomized, consecutively selected patients 11 to 18 years old. Eleven test-group subjects were bonded with fluoride-releasing glass ionomer cement, and 10 control subjects were bonded with composite resin (no fluoride). The teeth were extracted after 4 weeks, sectioned, and evaluated quantitatively by cross-sectional microhardness testing. Fluoride levels in patient saliva were measured by the Taves diffusion method in samples taken at days 0 (baseline), 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 to determine whether fluoride from the glass ionomer cement influenced the overall intraoral fluoride levels. The results demonstrated significantly more demineralization around the brackets of the control patients (P <.01, Wilcoxon signed rank test). For whole-mouth salivary fluoride levels, no significant overall difference between the groups (P >.05) and no noticeable trend within groups (P >.05) were found. These results indicate that using fluoride-releasing glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets successfully inhibited caries in vivo. This cariostatic effect was localized to the area around the brackets and was statistically significant after 4 weeks. Because the risk of dental caries increases with the use of orthodontic appliances and its control cannot depend only on the patient's self-care, this study evaluated the effect of a glass ionomer cement on reducing enamel demineralization around orthodontic brackets. Fourteen orthodontic patients were randomly divided into 2 groups of 7; they received 23 brackets fitted to their premolars, bonded with either Concise (3M Dental Products, St Paul, Minn), a composite resin (control group), or Fuji Ortho LC (GC America, Chicago, Ill), a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (experimental group). The volunteers lived in a city that has fluoridated water, but they did not use fluoridated dentifrices during the study. After 30 days, the teeth were extracted and longitudinally sectioned; in the enamel around the brackets, demineralization was assessed by cross-sectional microhardness. The determinations were made at the bracket edge cementing limits, and at occlusal and cervical points 100 and 200 microm away from them. In all of these positions, indentations were made at depths from 10 to 90 microm from enamel surface. Analysis of variance showed statistically significant effects for position, material, depth, and their interactions (P<.05). The Tukey test showed that the glass ionomer cement was statistically more efficient than the control, reducing enamel demineralization in all analyses (P<.05). The use of glass ionomer cement for bonding can be encouraged because it decreases the development of caries around orthodontic brackets. A randomized prospective clinical study, with 220 patients scheduled for fixed orthodontic therapy, was conducted to test the hypothesis that application of an antimicrobial varnish in combination with a fluoride varnish (group 1) is significantly more efficient in reducing white spot lesions on the labial surfaces than application of the fluoride varnish alone (group 2). The effects of the antimicrobial varnish on the occurrence of gingivitis and plaque formation were also studied. A third aim was to investigate whether white spot lesion development could be predicted early during treatment. The antimicrobial varnish significantly reduced the number of mutans streptococci in plaque during the first 48 weeks of treatment. This effect did not result in significantly less development of white spot lesions on the labial surfaces compared with the group receiving only the fluoride varnish application. There was however a clear trend that the combination of the antimicrobial and fluoride varnishes more effectively reduced the increments of new lesions on the maxillary incisors. It was speculated that this could be due partly to an inhibiting effect of the antimicrobial varnish in an area with low oral clearance (with low pH and loss of fluoride) and partly to an inhibiting effect of the varnish on mutans streptococci. No significant differences between the groups with respect to gingivitis and plaque were found. Lesion development was difficult to predict early after bonding, despite a number of caries-relevant parameters of orthodontic importance. The best predictors for white spot lesions at debonding were visible plaque and mutans streptococci (eg, the level of oral hygiene and thus the cariogenic challenge) around the appliance shortly after bonding. The aims of this study were to compare the local and systemic uptake of fluoride released from a compomer material (Dyract Ortho) and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer) with that of a conventional resin adhesive (Right-On) and to compare the cariostatic ability of each of the test materials with that of the resin control.
                Twenty six patients were randomly allocated to have a bracket bonded to a premolar on one side of the arch with one of the test materials and on the opposite side with the control material. Premolars destined for extraction as part of an orthodontic treatment plan were selected for bonding. A non-fluoride toothpaste was used by all participants for 4 weeks prior to bracket bonding and throughout the 4 week trial period. Fluoride release was measured in saliva, plaque and urine samples taken pre-bonding and 4 weeks post-bonding. Enamel demineralisation was assessed by scoring the buccal surface of each extracted tooth using a caries index.
                Neither Vitremer nor Dyract Ortho altered salivary or urinary fluoride concentration significantly 4 weeks post-bonding but plaque fluoride concentration increased significantly around premolars bonded with Vitremer. The test materials as a combined group were associated with significantly less demineralisation than the control material but there was no significant difference in cariostatic ability detected between either Dyract Ortho or Vitremer when each group was compared separately with the control.
                Fluoride released from Dyract Ortho or Vitremer is likely to exert a local and not a systemic effect. In a 4-week clinical study, the cariostatic ability of the fluoride-releasing cements, as a combined group, was superior to that of the non-fluoride releasing control but there was no significant difference in cariostatic ability between the two test materials when each test group was compared separately with the control. The study aimed to compare the survival time and cariostatic potential of a compomer to that of a resin adhesive when used to bond stainless steel orthodontic brackets to labial segment teeth only. The effect of the patients' sex, age at the start of treatment and presenting malocclusion on bracket survival time was assessed also. Forty-five consecutive patients who attended for fixed appliance therapy were randomly selected. Four hundred twenty-six brackets were bonded (213 with compomer and 213 with resin adhesive) with a split mouth design; the right or left side allocation of compomer in either arch was alternated. Color transparencies of the maxillary incisors, mandibular incisors, or both, and transparencies of the canines, were taken before treatment. At the debond stage, the transparencies were projected (20x) and assessed by an experienced examiner, who used a caries index. The survival time distributions for brackets bonded with each bonding agent were not significantly different (P = .74, paired Prentice-Wilcoxon test; P = .75, Akritas test), with bracket failure rates of 17% and 20% recorded for compomer and resin adhesive, respectively. Neither the patients' sex (P = .85) nor malocclusion (P = .26) appear to affect significantly bracket survival, but patient age was identified as a useful prognostic indicator of bracket survival (P < .001). On average, there was more decalcification related to brackets bonded with resin adhesive than with compomer (P = .0075). Survival time distributions of brackets bonded with compomer or resin adhesive appear comparable, but decalcification was reduced significantly by bonding with compomer. nan The aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo the cariostatic potential of the resin-reinforced glass-ionomer (Vitremer core build-up restorative; 3M Dental Product Division) when used as a bonding agent for orthodontic brackets. The mineral distribution and topography of the enamel surface adjacent to the bracket base was determined by quantitative microradiography (TMR) and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). The study was designed in split-mouth technique using 9 pairs of premolars to be extracted for orthodontic reasons. One tooth of each pair was bonded with the resin-reinforced glass-ionomer, and the control contralateral premolar with the non-fluoridated composite (Concise, 3M Dental Products Division). After 4 weeks all teeth were extracted and stored until analysis. The lesion depths and mineral loss values in enamel adjacent to brackets bonded with Vitremer were significantly lower than in teeth bonded with the composite, indicating that the resin-reinforced glass-ionomers significantly reduced caries lesion development in vivo. CLSM images show a severe cariogenic challenge around orthodontic brackets and support TMR measurements. A prospective controlled clinical trial was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of stannous fluoride-releasing elastomeric modules (Fluor-I-Ties) and chain (Fluor-I-Chain) in the prevention of enamel decalcification during fixed appliance therapy. Forty-nine patients (782 teeth) were included in the experimental group, where the fluoride-releasing elastomerics were used. Forty-five patients (740 teeth) who received non fluoride-releasing elastomerics formed the control group. All patients had their elastomerics replaced at each visit. Enamel decalcification incidence and distribution were recorded using an index by direct clinical observation. In the control group enamel decalcification occurred in 73 per cent of patients and in 26 per cent of all teeth. In the experimental group the corresponding incidence was 63 and 16 per cent, respectively. The overall reduction in score per tooth produced by the fluoride-releasing elastomerics was 49 per cent, a highly significant difference (P < 0.001). A significant difference was seen in all but the occlusal enamel zones. The majority (over 50 per cent) of lesions occurred gingivally. The teeth most severely affected were the maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular second premolars. There was no difference in treatment duration between groups. The cariostatic effect of a fluoride releasing bonding agent was investigated and compared with a conventional composite based material in connection with bonding of orthodontic brackets in 22 homologous pairs of premolars. All subjects had malocclusions requiring orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and extraction of at least two premolars. 6-13 weeks prior to extraction, orthodontic brackets were bonded to the labial surfaces of the extraction teeth with either a glass ionomer cement or a bis-GMA resin. Initially, the children were instructed in tooth brushing and the regular use of fluoride. After extraction, the bonded teeth were stained and evaluated in a stereo-microscope regarding the incidence and extension of initial enamel demineralisation. The zone of intact enamel adjacent to the bracket base and bonding material was measured in a stereo-microscope at four predetermined locations with the aid of an electronic ruler and scored according to four categories. The incidence of enamel demineralisation adjacent to glass ionomer bonded and composite bonded brackets was 68% and 77% respectively. In 12 pairs of premolars however, the demineralisation appeared to a lesser extent on the enamel around the brackets was generally wider when glass ionomer cement was used compared to the composite resin. These differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05) mesially and distally, but non-significant cervically and incisally. The results indicate that bonding with glass ionomer cement may have a local cariostatic effect in children requiring fixed orthodontic appliances. In spite of improved preventive measures, decalcification around bonded orthodontic appliances continues to be a problem for the clinician. Various fluoride-containing mediums have been proposed as aiding in the elimination of this problem; however, almost all are dependent on patient cooperation for their success. An ideal preventive system would be one that would operate independently of patient cooperation. The purpose of the present study was to compare a visible light-activated, fluoride-releasing bonding system with a visible light-activated conventional bonding system relative to bracket retention and prevalence of decalcification. Twenty-two patients were entered into the study, representing 206 experimental brackets and 206 control brackets. The average treatment period was 25 months. No significant differences in bracket retention rates were found between the two systems. Significantly, 26 teeth in the control group demonstrated decalcification (12.6%), whereas none of the teeth in the experimental group did. The results of this study suggest that a visible light-activated, fluoride-releasing bonding system is capable of adequately retaining brackets while aiding in the prevention of decalcification around bonded appliances. The time to first failure, the position of band failure at deband, and the change in enamel white spot lesions of teeth bonded with a modified composite or a conventional glass ionomer were compared in a randomized half-mouth trial over the full course of orthodontic treatment. One hundred forty band pairs were cemented in 98 subjects. Overall band failure rates of 5% and 2.8% were recorded for the modified composite and the conventional glass ionomer, respectively, with no significant difference found between their times to first band failure. At the end-of-treatment deband, the position of band failure was predominantly at the enamel-cement interface for the modified composite and at the band-cement interface for the conventional glass ionomer (P <.001). A comparison of changes in mean enamel white spot lesion scores during treatment did not reveal significant differences between the cement groups (P =.16).
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.