Caries-Preventive Effect of Duraphat® Varnish Applications versus Fluoride Mouthrinses: 5-Year Data

Abstract

The caries-preventive effect of Duraphat® lacquer versus fluoride mouthrinses was evaluated in a 5-year clinical trial. The lacquer group received Duraphat application every 6th month and a placebo rinse every 2nd week during the school year. The fluoride rinse group received a 0.2% sodium fluoride rinse every 2nd week during the school year and a placebo lacquer every 6th month. All children received regular dental examination and treatment in clinics established by the municipality in which the study took place. Fluoride content of the drinking water varied between 0.1 and 0.2 ppm F^––. Caries was recorded clinically and radiographically and increments calculated after 3 and 5 years. On teeth erupted at baseline the clinical caries increment after 5 years was 2.96 DMF-S in the lacquer group and 2.77 DMF-S in the fluoride rinse group, evaluated for the 248 3rd grades completing the study. Caries increment in teeth erupting during the trial was 2.20 DMF-S in the lacquer group and 2.30 DMF-S in the fluoride rinse group. The corresponding figures for radiographic caries increment were 1,01 and 0.82 DMF-S for teeth erupted at baseline, and 0.59 and 0.45 DMF-S for teeth erupting during the trial. None of the differences were statistically significant. Mean time needed to apply the lacquer was approximately 4 min, when working with a chairside assistant and 6 min, when working without a chairside assistant.

Caries Preventive Effect of Two Fluoride Varnishes and a Fluoride Mouthrinse

“…The results disagree with those of Kirkegaard et al [1985] who found no dif ference between the effect of Duraphat and fortnightly rinses. This may be due to the lower age and lesser caries activity among children in that study.…”

“…This may be due to the lower age and lesser caries activity among children in that study. The compli ance in the rinsing group may also have been higher in the study of Kirkegaard et al [1985], although no evidence of this is available. In this study, no extra attempt was made to influence the participation in order to find out the effect of the pro gramme with all its restraints.…”

“…Dura phat has proved effective in most studies [review in Clark, 1982], whereas the effect of the silane fluoride varnish Fluor Protec tor® has been less distinct [Kolehmainen and Kerosuo, 1979;Kolehmainen, 1981;Seppa et al, 1982c;van Eck et al, 1984;Clark et al, 1985]. Information about flu oride varnishes compared to fluoride rinses is sparse: Koch et al [1979] found Duraphat more effective than weekly rinses, but Kirkegaard et al [1985] found no difference between the effect of Dura phat and fortnightly rinses. In the study of Bruun et al [1985], Fluor Protector and fortnightly rinsing were equally effective.…”

Fluoride Mouthrinses and Fluoride Varnishes

“…Seppa and Pollanen [1987] reported on a clinical study where Duraphat varnish was more effective than fluoride rinsing with a 0.2% NaF solution which in turn was better than FluorProtector®. However, neither Bruun et al [1985] nor Kirkegaard et al [1986] demonstrated a superi or effect of varnishes over mouthrinses.…”

Comparative Three-Year Caries Protection from an Aluminium-Containing and a Fluoride-Containing Toothpaste

“…The drop-out rate during the trial was a little lower than the 25-26% in some of our previous trials [Poulsen et al, 1981;Kirkegaard et al, 1986] and slightly higher for the 1989-92 cohort (23%) than for the 1990-93 cohort (17%). This difference may have been generated by the negative effect of the media's comments on the trial.…”