MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593881704 · doi:10.1093/ejo/cjx010

Effect of fluoride-releasing resin composite in white spot lesions prevention: a single-centre, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial

2017· article· en· W2593881704 on OpenAlexaff
Mohannad M. Alabdullah, Alaa Nabawia, Mowaffak A Ajaj, Humam Saltaji

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Orthodontics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentistryMedicineRandomized controlled trialDemineralizationBlindingInterdental consonantRandomizationOrthodonticsEnamel paintSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of OrthodonticsSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207