OBJECTIVE: To test the null hypotheses: (1) there is no difference in the caries protective effect of ozone and Cervitec/Fluor Protector during multibracket (MB) appliance therapy, and (2) DIAGNOdent and quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) are not superior to a visual evaluation of initial caries lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty right-handed patients with a very poor oral hygiene who required full MB appliance therapy were analyzed during 26 months. In a split-mouth-design, the four quadrants of each patient were either treated with ozone, a combination of Cervitec and Fluor Protector, or served as untreated controls. The visible plaque index (VPI) and white spot formation were analyzed clinically. DIAGNOdent and QLF were used for a quantitative assessment of white spot formation. RESULTS: The average VPI in all four dental arch quadrants amounted to 55.6% and was independent of the preventive measure undertaken. In the quadrants treated with Cervitec/Fluor Protector, only 0.7% of the areas developed new, clinically visible white spots. This was significantly (P < .05) less than in the quadrants treated with ozone (3.2%). The lesions detected with QLF only partially corresponded to the clinically detected white spots, while DIAGNOdent proved to be unable to detect any changes at all. CONCLUSIONS: The caries protective effect of Cervitec/Fluor Protector during MB therapy was superior to ozone, and a visual evaluation of initial caries lesions was superior to both DIAGNOdent and QLF.
OBJECTIVE: To test the null hypotheses: (1) there is no difference in the caries protective effect of ozone and Cervitec/Fluor Protector during multibracket (MB) appliance therapy, and (2) DIAGNOdent and quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) are not superior to a visual evaluation of initial caries lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty right-handed patients with a very poor oral hygiene who required full MB appliance therapy were analyzed during 26 months. In a split-mouth-design, the four quadrants of each patient were either treated with ozone, a combination of Cervitec and Fluor Protector, or served as untreated controls. The visible plaque index (VPI) and white spot formation were analyzed clinically. DIAGNOdent and QLF were used for a quantitative assessment of white spot formation. RESULTS: The average VPI in all four dental arch quadrants amounted to 55.6% and was independent of the preventive measure undertaken. In the quadrants treated with Cervitec/Fluor Protector, only 0.7% of the areas developed new, clinically visible white spots. This was significantly (P < .05) less than in the quadrants treated with ozone (3.2%). The lesions detected with QLF only partially corresponded to the clinically detected white spots, while DIAGNOdent proved to be unable to detect any changes at all. CONCLUSIONS: The caries protective effect of Cervitec/Fluor Protector during MB therapy was superior to ozone, and a visual evaluation of initial caries lesions was superior to both DIAGNOdent and QLF.