Fluoride Content in Enamel after Repeated Applications of Fluoride Varnishes in a Community with Fluoridated Water

Seppä, Liisa; Luoma, H; Hausen, Hannu

doi:10.1159/000260569

Cited by 21 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The amount of fluoride deposited in enamel by fluoride varnishes is considerably higher than that deposited by other topical fluorides (1,10,17). We also found a significant increase in fluoride content of the enamel in treated teeth (20). Although the result of this and of previous trials are not directly comparable, one would expect the reduction in caries to be greater.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

“…In that case, the varnishes were actually equally effective, since DMFS increments on the test sides after 3 years were equal. Determinations of enamel fluoride performed 6 months after the fifth application, however, showed a distinct difference between fluoride content in the enamel of maxillary premolars in the control and test sides of both grotips (20). Fluoride content on the Fluor Protector control side was slightly higher than that on the Duraphat control side, bul the difference was not significant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three‐year report on caries prevention using fluoride varnishes for caries risk children in a community with fluoridated water

Seppä

Tuutti

Luoma

1982

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

– The Benifit of seminnual application of the sodium fluoride varnish Duraphat(R) and the silane fluoride varnish Fluor Protector(R) was studied in 11–13‐year‐old children with high caries activity and lifelong exposure to fluoridated drinking water (1–1.2 parts/106). Annual clinical and radiographic examinations were made of 62 children in the Duraphat group and 70 children in the Fluor Protector group. Fluoride varnish was applied semiannually using the half‐moth technique. After 3 years, for the Duraphat group mean total DMES increments on the control side were 6.2 and on the test side 4.3 (P<0.001); for the Fluor Protector group the DMES increments were 4.9 and 4.4, respectively (NS). The caries reductions were 30% and 11%. Since ther were no differences between initial mean DMES scores of the groups, it is possible that the lower increment in the Fluor Protector control side compatred to the Duraphat control side was due to fluoride ions from Fluor Protector crossing the midline and providing protection on the control side as well. Therefore, we conclude that Duraphat proved effective, but definite conslusion of the effect of Fluor Protector cannot be made. Children with the highest DMES increment on the control side (duraphat) gained most from the applications.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Three‐year report on caries prevention using fluoride varnishes for caries risk children in a community with fluoridated water

Seppä

Tuutti

Luoma

1982

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the papers by Petersson [1975] and Seppa et al [1982] the separation of Fon and Fjn has not been made. In these pa pers, therefore, the amount of F in the first layer etched off was found to be very high.…”

Section: Acquired Fluoride In the Enamel (Fn)mentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo Investigation on the Fluoride Content in and on Human Enamel after Topical Applications

1983

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this in vivo study the amount of fluoride present on and in human enamel was followed longitudinally for a period of 3 months. The fluoridating agents were an APF gel and the fluoridating lacquers Duraphat and Fluor Protector. The fluoride on the enamel (F_on, mainly as CaF₂) was determined by the Caslavska method. The fluoride in the enamel (F₂) was measured in five enamel layers removed by acid etching. 12 patients wore the treated enamel specimens and controls for periods of 1, 4 and 12 weeks before the Fon and F₂ determinations were made. The CaF₂ (or F_on) was lost in vivo in all three treatments at a rate of about 20 μg cm^-2 in the first week. Consequently, APF gel- and Duraphat-treated specimens lost nearly all CaF₂ in vivo in this period. The amount of CaF₂ present in the Fluor Protector case was noticeable up to 1 month. A second conclusion from this study is that the amount of acquired F^- (F₂ in a layer of 30 μm) following APF gel or Duraphat treatment was negligible after 1 week in vivo. A Fluor Protector treatment introduced an amount of acquired fluoride of 11, 14 and 15 μg cm^-2 after 1 4 or 12 weeks, respectively. This study shows that if sufficient CaF₂ is deposited on the enamel in vivo for a sufficiently long time, the amount of F∼ in the enamel can be increased significantly. Thirdly, despite the fact that during the in vivo experiments considerable amounts of CaF₂ were lost in the saliva, no measurable enrichment of control sound enamel resulted, not even in sound enamel specimens 3 mm from the treated blocks.

show abstract

“…Application of varnish on tooth surfaces was shown to promote the uptake of firmly bound fluoride by enamel, which was considered important at that time [4][5][6][7]. However, the concept of the cariostatic mechanism of fluoride has changed considerably over the past few decades.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluoride Varnishes in Caries Prevention

Seppä¹

2004

Med Princ Pract

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first fluoride varnishes were developed during the 1960s (Duraphat^® sodium fluoride varnish) and 1970s (Fluor Protector^® silane fluoride varnish) to prolong the contact time between fluoride and enamel. Fluoride varnishes adhere to enamel, and calcium fluoride formed after application acts as a long-term reservoir of fluoride. Currently Duraphat varnish is the most widely used topical fluoride for professional application in Europe, and the use of fluoride varnishes is increasing in the USA. Duraphat varnish has been effective in three decades of clinical studies, but the results of Fluor Protector varnish are inconclusive. The percent caries reductions found in the 1990s have generally been lower than those reported in earlier studies, probably because of the higher exposure to other preventive measures in the more recent studies. In studies comparing Duraphat varnish and APF gel, Duraphat varnish was equally or more effective than APF gel. Sealants were most effective in preventing occlusal caries. Four applications per year, or three weekly applications once a year, have been found to be effective. However, several studies have shown that two applications per year may provide comparable results. Application is fast and easy. Professional prophylaxis is not necessary, and the patient can leave immediately after the treatment. No acute toxicity has been reported after using any fluoride varnish.

show abstract

Fluoride Content in Enamel after Repeated Applications of Fluoride Varnishes in a Community with Fluoridated Water

Cited by 21 publications

References 13 publications

Three‐year report on caries prevention using fluoride varnishes for caries risk children in a community with fluoridated water

Three‐year report on caries prevention using fluoride varnishes for caries risk children in a community with fluoridated water

In vivo Investigation on the Fluoride Content in and on Human Enamel after Topical Applications

Fluoride Varnishes in Caries Prevention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About