| Literature DB >> 27843950 |
Zeynep Aslı Güçlü1, Alev Alaçam2, Nichola Jayne Coleman3.
Abstract
This 12-week clinical study evaluated the impact of 10% CPP-ACP and 5% sodium fluoride varnish regimes on the regression of nonorthodontic white spot lesions (WSLs). The study included 21 children with 101 WSLs who were randomised into four treatment regimes: weekly clinical applications of fluoride varnish for the first month (FV); twice daily self-applications of CPP-ACP paste (CPP-ACP); weekly applications of fluoride varnish for the first month and twice daily self-applications of CPP-ACP paste (CPP-ACP-FV); and no intervention (control). All groups undertook a standard oral hygiene protocol and weekly consultation. Visual appraisals and laser fluorescence (LF) measurements were made in weeks one and twelve. The majority of WSLs in the control and FV groups exhibited no shift in appearance, whereas, in the CPP-ACP and CPP-ACP-FV groups, the lesions predominantly regressed. The visual and LF assessments indicated that the extent of remineralisation afforded by the treatments was of the following order: control ~ FV < CPP-ACP ~ CPP-ACP-FV. Self-applications of CPP-ACP paste as an adjunct to standard oral hygiene significantly improved the appearance and remineralisation of WSLs. No advantage was observed for the use of fluoride varnish as a supplement to either the standard or CPP-ACP-enhanced oral hygiene regimes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27843950 PMCID: PMC5097823 DOI: 10.1155/2016/8357621
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Treatment groups.
| Parameter | Control | FV | CPP-ACP | CPP-ACP-FV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coin toss allocation | Head-Head | Tail-Tail | Head-Tail | Tail-Head |
| Number of teeth | 32 | 22 | 21 | 28 |
| Number of males | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Number of females | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Oral hygiene instructions | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Fluoridated dentifrice | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Antibacterial mouthwash | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Xylitol chewing gum | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Fluoride varnish |
| ✓ |
| ✓ |
| CPP-ACP paste |
|
| ✓ | ✓ |
Composition of commercially available products used in this study.
| Material | Composition |
|---|---|
|
| Sodium fluoride (1450 ppm F−), water, glycerin, hydrated silica, sorbitol, PVM/MA copolymer, sodium lauryl sulfate, aroma, carrageenan, sodium hydroxide, propylene glycol, cellulose gum, triclosan, sodium saccharin, limonene, CI 77891 (white pigment) |
|
| |
|
| Xylitol (23.2%), sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol syrup, aspartame, chewing gum, flavorings, Arabic gum, E171, glycerol, soya lecithin, carnauba wax, E320 |
|
| |
|
| CPP-ACP (10%), water, glycerol, D-sorbitol, xylitol, sodium carboxymethylcellulose, propylene glycol, silica, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, phosphoric acid, magnesium oxide, guar gum, sodium saccharin, ethyl p-hydroxybenzoate, butyl p-hydroxybenzoate, propyl p-hydroxybenzoate |
|
| |
|
| Sodium fluoride (5%), ethyl alcohol, methyl salicylate, hydrogenated rosin |
|
| |
|
| Benzydamine hydrochloride (0.15%), chlorhexidine gluconate (0.12%), water, saccharine, ethanol, methyl paraben, quinoline yellow, patent blue V, peppermint essential oil |
Visual examination criteria used in the selection and assessment of samples [10].
| Score | Visual assessment criterion |
|---|---|
| 1 | No, or slight, change in enamel translucency after air-drying for 5 seconds |
| 2 | Opacity or discoloration hardly visible on the wet surface but visible after air-drying |
| 3 | Visible opacity or discoloration without air-drying |
| 4 | Localised enamel breakdown with opacity or greyish discoloration from the underlying dentin |
| 5 | Cavitation in opaque or discolored enamel exposing the dentin |
Figure 1Frequency distribution plots for the pre- and posttreatment visual scores for (a) control group, (b) FV group, (c) CPP-ACP group, and (d) CPP-ACP-FV group.
Median pre- and posttreatment visual examination scores, interquartile ranges, and significance levels at which the null hypothesis is rejected for the Wilcoxon Sign Rank test.
| Treatment regime | Control | FV | CPP-ACP | CPP-ACP-FV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretreatment median (interquartile range) | 2 (2-3) | 3 (2-3) | 2 (2-3) | 3 (2-3) |
| Posttreatment median (interquartile range) | 2 (2-3) | 2 (2-3) | 2 (1-2) | 1 (1-2) |
| Sample size ( | 32 | 22 | 21 | 28 |
| Significance level ( | 0.257 | 0.003 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Figure 2Percentage transitions in the visual scores of the WSLs in the four treatment groups.
Figure 3Mean pre- and posttreatment laser fluorescence readings of the WSLs in the four treatment groups.
Mean pre- and posttreatment LF measurements, standard deviations, t statistics, and significance levels at which the null hypothesis is rejected for the one-tailed t-test.
| Treatment regime | Control | FV | CPP-ACP | CPP-ACP-FV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretreatment mean (standard deviation) | 16.9 (2.2) | 16.9 (2.1) | 16.7 (1.6) | 16.5 (2.0) |
| Posttreatment mean (standard deviation) | 6.42 (3.1) | 6.18 (3.0) | 3.16 (1.3) | 3.95 (2.6) |
|
| 1.672 | 1.687 | 1.685 | 1.675 |
|
| 15.56 | 13.78 | 30.24 | 19.95 |
| Significance level ( | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Mean decrease in LF measurements after treatment for each regime, variances, F-statistics, and significance level at which the null hypothesis is rejected for the one-way ANOVA test.
| Treatment regime | Control | FV | CPP-ACP | CPP-ACP-FV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean reduction after treatment | 10.48 | 10.68 | 13.56 | 12.57 |
| Variance | 9.71 | 12.20 | 5.19 | 5.69 |
|
| 2.696 | |||
|
| 6.645 | |||
| Significance level ( | <0.001 | |||
Results of one-tailed t-tests to compare the decrease in mean LF readings after each different treatment regime and the significance levels at which the null hypothesis is rejected.
| Comparison treatment regimes |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Control < FV | 1.682 | 0.219 | 0.414 |
| Control < CPP-ACP | 1.676 | 4.146 | <0.001 |
| Control < CPP-ACP-FV | 1.672 | 2.939 | 0.002 |
| FV < CPP-ACP | 1.688 | 3.210 | 0.001 |
| FV < CPP-ACP-FV | 1.688 | 2.171 | 0.018 |
| CPP-ACP < CPP-ACP-FV | 1.680 | 1.466 | 0.075 |
Figure 4Mean laser fluorescence readings as a function of visual score for treated teeth.