Effect of fluoride-releasing resin composite in white spot lesions prevention: a single-centre, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this two-arm split-mouth randomized trial, was to evaluate the ability of fluoride-releasing resin composite to prevent demineralization and white spot lesion (WSL) formation, during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. METHODS: Patients needing comprehensive orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated into two groups, according to the half split-mouth technique. This trial examined a total of 300 teeth in each group: the control group, in which brackets were fixed with a non-fluoride-containing adhesive resin; and the intervention group, in which brackets were fixed with a fluoride-containing adhesive resin. Eligibility criteria included Class I malocclusion in the permanent dentition, adequate oral hygiene and no missing teeth, active caries, enamel demineralization, fluorosis staining, or heavy restorations. The primary outcome was the formation of WSLs. Randomization was achieved using a computer-generated random number table; blinding of the patients, assessor, orthodontist and data analysist were achieved. The patients were followed for twelve months, during which time their teeth were checked every three months. To investigate the differences in frequencies and ranks of demineralization and WSL formation between the two groups, odds ratios were computed using mixed modelling (to compensate for the clustered nature of the data) with intervention as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (ages, 13-25 years; mean age, 17.6) were randomized into a 1:1 ratio, though four patients dropped out before the start of the treatment. The percentage of the teeth showing the effects of demineralization and WSL formation, increased from 6.3% to 15% for the control group after three and twelve months, respectively, and from 3% to 16.3% for the study group, after three to twelve months, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups and no interaction between time and treatment group in the visual inspections (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.52, 1.21), in DIAGNOdent examinations (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.43, 1.06), or in photographic images (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.46, 1.11). No serious harm was observed during the trial. LIMITATIONS: This trial was a single-centre trial, and treatment was carried out by one orthodontist. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoride-containing resin adhesive does not have the desired preventive effect to prevent demineralization and WSL formation, during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliance. REGISTRATION AND PROTOCOL: This randomized trial was not registered, and the protocol was not published before patient recruitment. FUNDING: The University of Damascus funded this trial.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».