“…10 Toumba 11 studied the FSSRD extensively both in vivo and in vitro and concluded that (a) the mean salivary fluoride (F) level with a device containing 13.3% F in human volunteers was elevated to 0.17 ppm compared with 0.01 ppm over a period of one month, 12 (b) the FSSRD posed no risk of F toxicity, since ingesting this device showed no alteration to plasma baseline F levels, 12,13 (c) using an in situ intra-oral model, it was demonstrated that F could exert an equal effect on the remineralisation of enamel slabs on both sides of the oral cavity, indicating that F had distributed to the opposite side of the oral cavity from a single FSSRD, 11 (d) a double blind randomised clinical caries trial, with high caries-risk children showed significantly fewer carious teeth for the F device, than the control (placebo) device group, over a two year period. For dmft-DMFT there were 67% fewer new carious teeth and for dmfs-DMFS there were 76% fewer new carious surfaces, 13,14 and (e) FSSRDs were shown to have very favourable cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness ratios. 15 Since it is presumed that the anti-cariogenic action of F is on the carious lesion, [16][17][18] its movement through and accumulation by plaque biofilms is important.…”