Trial reportInternational dental journal2024
A Comparison of the Fluoride 'Paint- On' vs Tray Application Techniques for Enamel Remineralisation.
Trial report in International dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Topical Fluoride Application Temperature on Recharge and Rerelease in Different Restorative Materials.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluoride gel treatment is not recommended for children < 6 years old due to its potential toxicity. Hence the aim of this study was to compare the effect of 1.23% acidulated-phosphate fluoride (APF) gel paint-on and the conventional tray application techniques on artificial, deciduous enamel carious lesions embedded on wearable appliances.
methodsIn a randomised crossover study, the volunteer children (n = 29) wore mandibular removable appliances containing embedded tooth specimens with artificial carious lesions. The volunteers had 3 different treatment protocols: (I) 0.4 mL non-fluoride (control) gel, (II) 0.4 mL paint-on 1.23% APF gel or (III) 5 mL 1.23% APF gel, 4 minutes tray application. After 1 hour, the appliances were removed and the specimens underwent an in vitro, 14 days of pH-cycling. The mean percentage reduction in fluorescence (ΔF, %) at baseline (ΔF
resultsThe mean ΔΔF of groups I to III were -1.42 ± 1.49, 1.06 ± 2.11, and 1.12 ± 3.57 and -1.25 ± 1.44, 1.13 ± 1.84 and 1.44 ± 3.62 for the smooth surface and proximal surface lesions, respectively. The mean ΔΔF in the 2 treatment groups were significantly greater compared with the control group (P < .001). There was no significant difference in ΔΔF between the APF gel tray and paint-on groups either in the smooth surfaces, or the proximal surfaces (P = .629 and P = .613, respectively).
conclusionOur study, for the first time, indicates that the paint-on application of APF gel or the tray application of APF had a similar enamel remineralisation effect. Clinically, this implies that, particularly in younger children, the paint-on application of fluoride is less cumbersome, and possibly more tolerable with a lesser likelihood of fluoride ingestion than the tray application technique.
trial registrationThai Clinical Trial Registry (https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20190724001).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.