The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reversal of Primary Root Caries Using Dentifrices Containing 5,000 and 1,100 ppm Fluoride
Abstract
This study compared the ability of two sodium fluoride dentifrices, one containing 5,000 ppm fluoride (Prevident 5000 Plus) and the other 1,100 ppm fluoride (Winterfresh Gel), to reverse primary root caries lesions (PRCLs). A total of 201 subjects with at least one PRCL each entered the study and were randomly allocated to use one of the dentifrices. After 6 months, 186 subjects were included in statistical analyses. At baseline and after 3 and 6 months, the lesions were clinically assessed and their electrical resistance measured using an electrical caries monitor. After 3 months, 39 (38.2%) of the 102 subjects in the 5,000 ppm F– group and 9 (10.7%) of 84 subjects using the 1,100 ppm F– dentifrice, had one or more PRCLs which had hardened (p = 0.005). Between baseline and 3 months, the log 10 mean ± SD resistance values of lesions for subjects in the 1,100 ppm F– group had decreased by 0.06±0.55, whereas those in the 5,000 ppm F– group had increased by 0.40±0.64 (p<0.001). After 6 months, 58 (56.9%) of the subjects in the 5,000 ppm F– group and 24 (28.6%) in the 1,100 ppm F– group had one or more PRCLs that had become hard (p = 0.002). Between baseline and 6 months, the log 10 mean ± SD resistance values of lesions for subjects in the 1,100 ppm F– group decreased by 0.004±0.70, whereas in the 5,000 ppm F– group, they increased by 0.56±0.76 (p<0.001). After 3 and 6 months, the distance from the apical border of the root caries lesions to the gingival margin increased significantly in the 5,000 ppm F– group when compared with the 1,100 ppm F– group. The plaque index in the 5,000 ppm F– group was also significantly reduced when compared with the 1,100 ppm F– group. The colour of the lesions remained unchanged. It was concluded that the dentifrice containing 5,000 ppm F– was significantly better at remineralising PRCLs than the one containing 1,100 ppm F–.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
For dentine, higher fluoride concentration is necessary to control caries.
“For dentine, higher fluoride concentration [19–23], higher frequency of use [24], or combination of methods of fluoride delivery [25] should be necessary to control caries; however, the evidence is not conclusive.”
From Validation of a Cariogenic Biofilm Model to Evaluate the Effect of Fluoride on Enamel and Root Dentine Demineralization (2016) · cites this paper as [19]
More fluoride is required to control root caries than is used for enamel.
“which support clinical data suggesting that more fluoride would be required to control root caries [19, 21, 22] than that used for enamel.”
From Validation of a Cariogenic Biofilm Model to Evaluate the Effect of Fluoride on Enamel and Root Dentine Demineralization (2016) · cites this paper as [19]
This model could be used to estimate the anti-caries potential of innovative toothpaste formulations with low fluoride concentration that could be recommended to control enamel caries in children, and formulations with high fluoride concentrations that have been suggested to control root caries in elderly people.
“Therefore, this model could be used to estimate the anti-caries potential of innovative toothpaste formulations with low fluoride concentration [46] that could be recommended to control enamel caries in children, and formulations with high fluoride concentrations, that have been suggested to control root caries in elderly people [19, 21, 22].”
From Validation of a Cariogenic Biofilm Model to Evaluate the Effect of Fluoride on Enamel and Root Dentine Demineralization (2016) · cites this paper as [19]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fluoride toothpastes of different concentrations for preventing dental caries
Walsh, T., Worthington, H. V., Glenny, A.-M., Marinho, V. C., & Jeroncic, A. (2019) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007868.pub3 · Cited by 620
Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on nonrestorative treatments for carious lesions
Slayton, R. L., Urquhart, O., Araujo, M. W. B., Fontana, M., Guzmán-Armstrong, S., Nascimento, M. M., Nový, B. B., Tinanoff, N., Weyant, R. J., Wolff, M. S., et al. (2018) · The Journal of the American Dental Association · doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2018.07.002 · Cited by 317
Review: modulation of the oral microbiome by the host to promote ecological balance
Cornejo Ulloa, P., van der Veen, M. H., & Krom, B. P. (2019) · Odontology · doi:10.1007/s10266-019-00413-x · Cited by 104
Fernández, C. E., Tenuta, L. M. A., & Cury, J. A. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146478 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Venue
- Caries Research
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2000-12-22
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-46
- ISSN
- 0008-6568
- 1421-976X
- Cited by
- 157
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review