Prospective Study of the Effect of Post-Brushing Rinsing Behaviour on Dental Caries

The aim of the study was to determine whether rinsing with a mouthwash after brushing with a fluoridated toothpaste affected oral fluoride (F) retention and clearance compared with an oral hygiene regime without mouthwash. In this supervised, single-blind study, 3 regimes were compared: (A) brushing for 1 min with 1 g of 1,450 μg F/g NaF toothpaste followed by rinsing for 5 s with 10 ml water; (B) as A but followed by rinsing for 30 s with 20 ml of 100 mg F/l NaF mouthwash, and (C) as B but rinsing for 30 s with a non-fluoridated mouthwash. Twenty-three adults applied each treatment once in a randomised order, separated by 1-week washout periods, and used a non-fluoridated toothpaste at home prior to and during the study. Whole saliva samples (2 ml), collected before each treatment commenced and 10, 20, 30, 60, 90 and 120 min afterwards, were subsequently analysed for fluoride by ion-specific electrode. The mean (SD) back-transformed log (area under salivary F clearance curve) values were: A = 2.36 (+3.37, –1.39), B = 2.54 (+2.72, –1.31) and C = 1.19 (+1.10, –0.57) mmol F/l × min, respectively. The values for regimes A and B were statistically significantly greater than that for regime C (p < 0.001; paired t test). These findings suggest that use of a non-F mouthwash after toothbrushing with a F toothpaste may reduce the anticaries protection provided by toothbrushing with a F toothpaste alone. The use of a mouthwash with at least 100 mg F/l should minimise this risk.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Effect of Rinsing with Mouthwashes after Brushing with a Fluoridated Toothpaste on Salivary Fluoride Concentration

Duckworth¹,

Maguire²,

Omid³

et al. 2009

“…reported that rinsing habits might play an important role in the oral retention of fluoride from dentifrices, which may affect their clinical efficacy. However, in a recent clinical trial Machiulskiene et al [2002] reported no statistically significant difference in 3-year DMFS increments between two schools in one of which children rinsed after brushing and in the other did not.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Oral Fluoride Retention in Saliva following Toothbrushing with Child and Adult Dentifrices with and without Water Rinsing

Issa

Toumba²

2003

Ten healthy adult volunteers were recruited to participate in this double-blind randomised 18-leg crossover designed study. The subjects either rinsed their mouth with 10 ml de-ionised distilled water for 10 s or just spat out once after 1-min brushing with one of nine different toothpastes: NaF (500, 1,000 and 1,450 ppm F), SMFP (525, 1,000, 1,450 ppm F), AmF (250, 1,400 ppm F) or fluoride-free dentifrice. Samples of whole mixed unstimulated saliva were collected at different time intervals. The results showed that the use of the AmF toothpaste (1,400 ppm F) resulted in the highest fluoride content of saliva without water rinsing after 120 min (0.52 ppm F, CI 0.23, 0.81). Two hours after brushing with fluoride toothpaste containing AmF and NaF, the salivary fluoride levels were still higher than baseline levels.

“…Since the 1990s, clinical trials worldwide have provided evidence that clinically diagnosed caries lesions, at the noncavitated stage in particular, may be successfully treated by nonoperative strategies [Carvalho et al, 1992;Machiulskiene et al, 2001Machiulskiene et al, , 2002Maltz et al, 2003;Marinho et al, 2003;Ismail et al, 2013]. However, it appears that when the diagnostic process is related to the management strategies, it becomes a major challenge for the dental professionals.…”

confidence: 99%

Clinical Diagnosis of Dental Caries in the 21st Century: Introductory Paper – ORCA Saturday Afternoon Symposium, 2016

Mačhiulskienė¹,

Carvalho²

2018

Classifications employed to measure dental caries should first of all reflect the dynamics of the disease, in order to provide a solid basis for subsequent treatment decisions and for further monitoring of dental health of individual patients and populations. The contemporary philosophy of dental caries management implies that nonoperative treatment of caries lesions should be implemented whenever possible, limiting operative interventions to the severe and irreversible cases. The ORCA Saturday Afternoon Symposium 2016, held back-to-back to the 63rd ORCA Congress in Athens, Greece, was intended to provide an update on general requirements for clinical caries diagnosis and to overview caries diagnostic classifications including their rationale, validation, advantages, and limitations. Clinical caries diagnostic criteria and caries management outcomes are interrelated, and any diagnostic classification disregarding this concept is outdated, according to the current understanding of oral health care. Choosing clinical caries diagnostic classifications that assess the activity status of detected lesions should be a priority for dental professionals since these classifications favor the best clinical practice directed towards nonoperative interventions. The choice of clinical caries diagnostic classifications in research, in clinical practice, and in public health services should be guided by the best available scientific evidence. The clinical caries diagnostic classifications should be universally applicable in all these fields. Policy making in oral health care and the underlying policy analyses should follow the same standards. Any clinical caries diagnostic classification disregarding the universality of its use is of limited or no interest in the context of the clinical caries diagnosis of today.