Effect of fluoride-releasing resin composite in white spot lesions prevention: a single-centre, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".