EFFECT OF HIGH-FLUORIDE TOOTHPASTE AND MOUTH RINSE ON THE PREVENTION OF DEMINERALIZED LESIONS DURING ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the impact of using high-fl uoride toothpaste and mouth rinse in preventing demineralized lesions (DLs) during orthodontic therapy.Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled trial included 250 patients of both gender and were divided into three groups (A=FMR, B=HFT and C=FT). The FMR group, which received a 0.2% sodium fl uoride (NaF) mouth rinse in addition to 1450 ppm fl uoride (F) toothpaste; the HFT group, which used a 5000 ppm F toothpaste; and the Control (CTR) group, which utilized 1450 ppm F toothpaste. Non-probability purposive sampling was used for the recruitment of patients. A blinded healthcare professional evaluated digital images obtained before and after treatment to determine the percentage of individuals with at least one new demineralized lesion. SPSS version 25 was used for analysis. Results: A total of 250 patients with a mean age of 16.82±2.21 years participated, comprising 95 males (38.0%) and 155 females (62.0%). Group A (n=83) had a mean age of 17.01±2.17 years, Group B (n=84) 16.46±2.19 years, and Group C (n=83) 17.00±2.26 years. Health status varied, with Group A having 73.5% with no disease, Group B 83.3%, and Group C 90.4%. the study presents unadjusted relative risks for increases in demineralized lesions (≥1, ≥2, ≥3) in all teeth and the aesthetic zone, comparing High-Fluoride Toothpaste (HFT) vs. Control (CTR), Fluoride Mouth Rinse (FMR) vs. CTR, and FMR vs. HFT. Pretreatment, white spot lesions (WSL) were distributed across groups, with Group A and B showing diff erent prevalence rates. Post-treatment, Group A had 30.1% with 0 lesions, Group B 33.3%, and Group C 20.5%. Statistically significant differences were observed for increases in ≥1 WSL post-treatment (p=0.01), but not for ≥2 WSL (p=0.50) or ≥3 WSL (p=0.11).Conclusion: It has been shown that using high fl uoride toothpaste and mouthwash can help prevent dental caries on canines, lateral incisors, and central incisors when undergoing orthodontic treatment. A mouthwash and toothpaste with high fl uoride content may be advised to prevent DL in the aesthetic zone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".