Background. The purpose of this randomized trial is to compare the efficacy of weekly once regime of neutral sodium fluoride (NaF) oral rinse with that of acidulated phosphate (APF) formulated daily mouth rinse in the reduction of white spot lesions (WSLs) associated with fixed orthodontic appliance treatment. Methods. The participants ( n = 90 ) of this single-center, two-arm parallel study without a control group were randomly assigned with 1 : 1 distribution to each of the two groups after the bonding of brackets. Group A/test group 1 ( n = 45 ) was given weekly rinse of neutral sodium fluoride (Colgate® PreviDent® Dental Rinse-0.2% NaF), and for group B/test group 2 ( n = 45 ), an APF formulated daily oral rinse (Colgate® Ortho Defense@ PhosFlur® Rinse-0.044% w/v of NaF) was given for six months. The outcome was assessed by the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) index for scoring the demineralization, and for scoring gingivitis, Loe and Silness gingival index (GI) was utilized. Four different time points “T0”immediately before bonding procedures, “T1” after 4weeks, “T2” after 12 weeks, and “T3” after 24 weeks were taken to assess the ICDAS and GI scores. Results. The mean ICDAS scores for group A (NaF) were 0.025, 0.051, 0.093, and 0.113 and for group B (APF) were 0.014, 0.022, 0.038, and 0.015 at different points of time. The GI scores for group A were 0.008, 0.22, 0.33, and 0.38 and for group B were 0.003, 0.136, 0.181, and 0.097 at different time points. There was a statistically significant difference ( p < 0.05 ) for both groups in terms of reducing WSL and GI. Conclusion. APF formulated daily oral rinse—0.044% w/v of NaF—is more effective than the weekly once regimen of 0.2% NaF oral rinse to prevent white spot lesions.

Background: There are different types of retention protocols and retainers prescribed by the orthodontists across the globe. Aim: The study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the retention practices followed by the orthodontists in India. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire link with a set of 29 questions was generated using the Google Forms App. The questions related to the basic demographic details followed by retention procedures in maxilla and mandible as related to the type of retainer, duration of wear, retention check-ups, and adjunctive procedures being followed. The Google forms were mailed to 1147 registered life members of the Indian Orthodontic Society. Results: The overall response rate was 20.1%. On receiving of the completed questionnaires, the data were statistically analyzed. Dual mode of retention, fixed retainers with removable thermoplastic resin (TR)/vacuum formed retainers (VFR) (24%) were the common type of retention in maxilla whereas the fixed bonded retainer (44.5%) was more commonly used in mandible. Full time wear of maxillary retainer was recommended by 85.2% of the respondents. The recommended duration of the fixed retainer is for 2–5 years (41.9%). Conclusion: A trend towards more dual retention instead of solitary removable or solitary fixed retention, more VFR instead of Hawley-type retainers has been demonstrated in the survey.