This is a repository copy of Fluorides for preventing early tooth decay (demineralised lesions) during fixed brace treatment. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/154038/ Version: Published Version Article: Benson, P.E. orcid.org/0000-0003-0865-962X, Parkin, N., Dyer, F. et al. (2 more authors) (2019) Fluorides for preventing early tooth decay (demineralised lesions) during fixed brace treatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019 (11). CD003809. ISSN 1469-493X https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003809.pub4 This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 11. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.’ + ' Benson PE, Parkin N, Dyer F, Millett DT, Germain P., Fluorides for preventing early tooth decay (demineralised lesions) during fixed brace treatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD003809. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003809.pub4. Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Cochrane Library Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Fluorides for preventing early tooth decay (demineralised lesions) during fixed brace treatment (Review) Benson PE, Parkin N, Dyer F, Millett DT, Germain P Benson PE, Parkin N, Dyer F, Millett DT, Germain P. Fluorides for preventing early tooth decay (demineralised lesions) during fixed brace treatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD003809. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003809.pub4. www.cochranelibrary.com Fluorides for preventing early tooth decay (demineralised lesions) during fixed brace treatment (Review) Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Cochrane Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Library Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S HEADER......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 METHODS..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 1.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 RESULTS........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 2.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................................................... 22 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................................................................ 23 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................................................................ 24 CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES.................................................................................................................................................................. 29 DATA AND ANALYSES.................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Professionally-applied F varnish versus non-F (placebo) varnish, Outcome 1 Number of participants 51 with new DLs......................................................................................................................................................................................... Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Professionally-applied F varnish versus non-F (placebo) varnish, Outcome 2 Number of participants 51 with more severe DLs (scores 3 or 4 versus scores 1 or 2)................................................................................................................. Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 12,500 ppm F (NaF/olaflur/dectaflur) gel versus 0 ppm F placebo gel, Outcome 1 Number of 52 participants with new DLs.................................................................................................................................................................... Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 12,300 ppm F APF foam versus 0 ppm F placebo foam, Outcome 1 Number of participants with new 52 DLs.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 5000 ppm F toothpaste versus 1450 ppm F toothpaste, Outcome 1 Number of participants with new 53 DLs.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 250 ppm F mouthrinse (100 ppm AmF/150 ppm NaF) versus 0 ppm F placebo mouthrinse, Outcome 53 1 Number of participants with new DLs.............................................................................................................................................. Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 1400 ppm/250 ppm F (AmF/SnF) versus 1400 ppm/250 ppm F (NaF) toothpaste/mouthrinse 54 combinations, Outcome 1 White spot index....................................................................................................................................... Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 1400 ppm/250 ppm F (AmF/SnF) versus 1400 ppm/250 ppm F (NaF) toothpaste/mouthrinse 54 combinations, Outcome 2 Visible plaque index................................................................................................................................. Analysis 6.3. Comparison 6 1400 ppm/250 ppm F (AmF/SnF) versus 1400 ppm/250 ppm F (NaF) toothpaste/mouthrinse 54 combinations, Outcome 3 Gingival bleeding index............................................................................................................................ Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) versus light-cured composite resin (LCC), Outcome 55 1 Number of participants with new DLs.............................................................................................................................................. Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) versus light-cured composite resin (LCC), Outcome 55 2 Number of participants with more severe DLs of aesthetic concern.............................................................................................. Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Intraoral F-releasing glass bead device versus F mouthrinse only, Outcome 1 Number of participants 56 with new DLs........................................................................................................................................................................................