Slow-release fluoride devices: a literature review

Abstract

Although the prevalence of caries has decreased dramatically over the past decades, it has become a polarised disease, with most of subjects presenting low caries levels and few individuals accounting for most of the caries affected surfaces. Thus it become evident for the need of clinical approaches directed at these high-risk patients, in order to overcome problems related to compliance and low attendance at dental care centres. Slow-release fluoride devices were developed based on the inverse relationship existing between intra-oral fluoride levels and dental caries experience. The two main types of slow-release devices – copolymer membrane type and glass bead – are addressed in the present review. A substantial number of studies have demonstrated that these devices are effective in raising intra-oral F concentrations at levels able to reduce enamel solubility, resulting in a caries-protective effect. Studies in animals and humans demonstrated that the use of these devices was able to also protect the occlusal surfaces, not normally protected by conventional fluoride regimens. However, retention rates have been shown to be the main problem related to these devices and still requires further improvements. Although the results of these studies are very promising, further randomised clinical trials are needed in order to validate the use of these devices in clinical practice. The concept of continuously providing low levels of intra-oral fluoride has great potential for caries prevention in high caries-risk groups.

Dose-Response Effects of Zinc and Fluoride on Caries Lesion Remineralization

“…[F] and [Zn] were chosen to maintain physiological relevance; 1.1 mol/l F has been reported as the natural background level in saliva [Lynch et al, 2004], whereas 52.6 mol/l F is perhaps the highest [F] maintainable in the oral cavity and through slow-release devices [for review see Pessan et al, 2008]. [Zn] values represent those found naturally in saliva and after the use of Zn-containing oral care products [Burguera-Pascu et al, 2007].…”

Orthodontic treatment-related risks and complications: part I dental complications

“…Also, resin-modified glass ionomer cement is preferred as a bonding material.This bonding material reduces enamel damage thanks to fluor releasing, and it has a bond strength similar to resins. [22][23][24][25] The debonding and removal phase of orthodontic treatment may cause tooth damage as enamel loss or cracks. The frequency of enamel loss depends on the brackets, bonding materials, and debonding technique.…”

The Importance and Possibilities of Proper Oral Hygiene in Orthodontic Patients

“…In a review of Pessan et al (2008) there are three types of devices: Copolymer membrane device, Glass device, Hydroxyapatite Eudragit RS100 diffusion controlled F system. The third one is the newest type of slow release device, which consists of a mixture of hydroxyapatite, NaF and Eudragit RS100; it contains 18 mg NaF and intended to release 0.15 mg F/day.…”

“…Beside of this, such a device would overcome compliance problems also. It may not eliminate all carious lesions, but would lead to dramatic reduction and in combination with antibacterial treatments could indeed eliminate caries in high risk individuals (Pessan et al, 2008).…”