Fluoride Content of Enamel during Treatment and 2 Years after Discontinuation of Treatment with Fluoride Varnishes

Seppä, Liisa

doi:10.1159/000260777

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite this limitation, Duraphat varnish achieved a caries reduction of 30%, but the caries reduction by Fluor Protector varnish was not significant, probably because fluoride from Fluor Protector had moved to the control side of the mouth. Fluor Protector varnish deposited significantly more fluoride in the enamel than Duraphat varnish, a finding which has also been reported in other studies [17][18][19]. The reason for this finding is unclear.…”

Section: Early Studies Of the Efficacy Of Fluoride Varnishessupporting

confidence: 67%

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

Section: Early Studies Of the Efficacy Of Fluoride Varnishessupporting

confidence: 67%

Fluoride Varnishes in Caries Prevention

Seppä¹

2004

Med Princ Pract

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considering fluoride varnishes, Fluor Protector has clearly deposited more fluoride in the enamel than Duraphat, but it has not been clinically more effective (Seppa, 1991). 5) (Seppa, 1984;Seppa et al, 1984). 4), caries prevention did not persist during this time with either of the varnishes (Fig.…”

Section: Gaardetalmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Since no calcium fluoride could be detected, Bang and Kim (1973), who found a significantly elevated fluoride concentration in the surface enamel one week after application of Duraphat in vivo, suggested that the fluoride was retained as fluorapatite. The firmly bound fluoride which is observed in connection with Duraphat (and 2% NaF) treatment (Bang and Kim, 1973;Petersson, 1975;Seppa, 1984;0gaard et al, 1984) is most likely formed later as a result of remineralization during pH cycling in plaque (R0lla, 1988). Furthermore, Cruz and co-workers (1992b) showed that no firmly bound fluoride was present immediately after treatment.…”

Section: Calcium Fluoride Formation During Professional Topical Fluormentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional Topical Fluoride Applications— Clinical Efficacy and Mechanism of Action

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All currently used topical fluoride agents deposit soluble fluoride as calcium fluoride on enamel or in lesions. Calcium fluoride serves as a source of fluoride for the formation of fluorapatite. The latter phase is formed when pH drops in plaque, not during topical application. The potential for calcium fluoride formation should probably be increased in topical fluoride agents. In countries with low caries prevalence, the clinical recommendations for topical fluoride need to be reconsidered. Toothpaste is the basic fluoride regimen recommended for everybody. The need for additional fluoride supplementation depends on caries activity. There is no distinct difference in the caries-preventive effects of concentrated fluoride solutions, gels, or varnishes. Thus, the choice of method depends on costs, convenience, patient acceptance, and safety. The use of fluoride varnishes has proven to be a feasible and safe method of fluoride application. With fluoride varnishes, the amounts of fluoride exposure can be better controlled, and less chair-time is required compared with conventional solutions and gels. No dose-response effect to concentrated fluoride agents is apparent, and the benefit of frequent application is not clearly established. In individuals with the most severe cariogenic challenge, combinations of fluoride and antimicrobials may give better clinical effects than fluoride alone.

show abstract

“…13 Fluoride varnish needs to be reapplied to maintain its caries-preventive effect. 14,15 The only disadvantage of fluoride varnishes is they cause a temporary change in tooth color and perceptible color changes in some restorative materials. 16 Few studies have investigated the effect of fluoride varnishes on restorative materials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Repeated Fluoride Varnish Application on Different Restorative Surfaces

Salama

Schulte

Iseman³

et al. 2006

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of this study was to assess the effect of repeated (twice) applications of two fluoride varnishes (Duraflor and CavityShield) on the surface micromorphology of a high-viscosity glass ionomer (Fuji IX GP), a compomer (F2000), and a flowable composite (Filtek™ Flow) using a profilometer and scanning electron microscope (SEM). Methods and Materials:Fifteen specimens were prepared from each material, surface roughness (R a ) was measured with a profilometer, and an impression was made for epoxy replicas. The fluoride varnishes were applied to the experimental specimens of each material at repeated intervals of 48 hours. For all specimens, R a was measured and SEM replicas were examined. Results:The final R a of glass ionomer was 3.49 ± 0.59 (mean ± SD) for CavityShield, 4.69 ± 1.33 for Duraflor, and 2.96 ± 1.53 for the controls. The final R a of flowable composite was 0.53 ± 0.20 for CavityShield, 2.61 ± 3.08 for Duraflor, and 0.15 ± 0.09 for controls. For glass ionomer and flowable composite, Duraflor was associated with a significantly higher roughness at the final measurement compared to controls (P < 0.05). SEM micrographs showed differing surface topographies which in many specimens confirmed R a analysis. Conclusion:Fuji IX GP and Filtek™ Flow showed significantly higher roughness after two applications of Duraflor compared to controls. Abstract © Seer Publishing

show abstract

Fluoride Content of Enamel during Treatment and 2 Years after Discontinuation of Treatment with Fluoride Varnishes

Cited by 13 publications

References 3 publications

Fluoride Varnishes in Caries Prevention

Fluoride Varnishes in Caries Prevention

Professional Topical Fluoride Applications— Clinical Efficacy and Mechanism of Action

Effects of Repeated Fluoride Varnish Application on Different Restorative Surfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About