IADR Abstract Archives
Fluoride Solution on Dental Erosion: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Objectives: The preventive effect of fluoride in erosion comes from in vitro and in situ studies, but this evidence has been questioned. Therefore, considering in situ studies, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of monovalent and polyvalent fluoride solutions compared to the negative control group (absence of fluoride) in the prevention and control of enamel erosion associated or not with abrasion. The secondary objective was to compare the effectiveness between monovalent and polyvalent fluoride solutions
Methods: The response variable used in this study was enamel wear, which was measured by profilometry. This review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017071118) and followed PRISMA guidelines. A systematic and comprehensive search was performed using PUBMED, WEB OF SCIENCE, SCOPUS, EMBASE, BBO, LILACS, SCIELO and grey literature IBICT-BDTD. A total of 625 studies were obtained and after exclusion of duplicate articles, only 264 were included in this study. The selection phase was followed systematically (kappa=0,98), conducted by two independent authors and was ended with twelve studies for qualitative analysis and ten studies for metanalysis.
Results: Metanalysis of all 10 studies of quantitative analysis showed positive results for polyvalent fluoride solutions with a significate prevention of erosion and erosion/abrasion compared to control group. Monovalent fluoride solutions were able to prevent only against erosion, since they did not present difference to control when evaluating erosion/abrasion. When polyvalent and monovalent fluoride solutions were compared, the first one resulted in less wear after erosive challenge. However, for erosion/abrasion, no significant differences were observed between the fluoride solutions. The metanalysis was redone considering only the studies with low risk of bias (Cochrane scale adapted for in situ studies) and the results were confirmed
Conclusions: Therefore, there is consistent evidence for the preventive effect of both solutions evaluated, especially the polyvalent fluoride ones, against enamel erosion associated or not to abrasion.
Methods: The response variable used in this study was enamel wear, which was measured by profilometry. This review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017071118) and followed PRISMA guidelines. A systematic and comprehensive search was performed using PUBMED, WEB OF SCIENCE, SCOPUS, EMBASE, BBO, LILACS, SCIELO and grey literature IBICT-BDTD. A total of 625 studies were obtained and after exclusion of duplicate articles, only 264 were included in this study. The selection phase was followed systematically (kappa=0,98), conducted by two independent authors and was ended with twelve studies for qualitative analysis and ten studies for metanalysis.
Results: Metanalysis of all 10 studies of quantitative analysis showed positive results for polyvalent fluoride solutions with a significate prevention of erosion and erosion/abrasion compared to control group. Monovalent fluoride solutions were able to prevent only against erosion, since they did not present difference to control when evaluating erosion/abrasion. When polyvalent and monovalent fluoride solutions were compared, the first one resulted in less wear after erosive challenge. However, for erosion/abrasion, no significant differences were observed between the fluoride solutions. The metanalysis was redone considering only the studies with low risk of bias (Cochrane scale adapted for in situ studies) and the results were confirmed
Conclusions: Therefore, there is consistent evidence for the preventive effect of both solutions evaluated, especially the polyvalent fluoride ones, against enamel erosion associated or not to abrasion.