Compomer (polyacid-modified composite, fluoride-releasing) for bonding brackets vs Compomer bonding agent without fluoride release: Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment
- Population
- Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances
- Intervention
- Compomer (polyacid-modified composite, fluoride-releasing) for bonding brackets
- Comparison
- Compomer bonding agent without fluoride release
- Outcome
- Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment
For compomer-based bonding agents, fluoride release did not significantly change WSL initiation (RR 0.71); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fluoride-releasing compomer-based bonding agent vs Non-fluoride compomer-based bonding agent Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances · 1-24 months follow-up, Patients undergoing fixed (multibracket) orthodontic appliance treatment; clinical/dental setting; analysis at tooth level, Compomer-based bonding agents For compomer-based bonding agents, fluoride release did not significantly change WSL initiation (RR 0.71); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated. Efficacy of sealants and bonding materials during fixed orthodontic treatment to prevent enamel… (2021) All outcomes | RR 0.71 [0.46, 1.11] | 2 studies · 400 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy of sealants and bonding materials during fixed orthodontic treatment to prevent enamel demineralization: a systematic review and… 2021 All outcomes | Not specified (no date restriction on language or year) | 24 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Compomer (polyacid-modified composite, fluoride-releasing) for bonding brackets vs Compomer bonding agent without fluoride release · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full… · 1 review
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- Clinical effect of a fluoride-releasing and rechargeable primer in reducing white spot lesions during orthodontic treatment · 2020 · included by 1 of these review
- Effect of fluoride-releasing resin composite in white spot lesions prevention: a single-centre, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial · 2017 · included by 1 of these review
- Efficacy of a fluoride-releasing orthodontic primer in reducing demineralization around brackets: An in-vivo study · 2014 · included by 1 of these review
- Efficacy of a filled-resin sealant in preventing decalcification during orthodontic treatment · 2010 · included by 1 of these review
- Effects of sealant and self-etching primer on enamel decalcification. Part II: An in-vivo study · 2009 · included by 1 of these review
- Fluoride release and cariostatic ability of a compomer and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement used for orthodontic bonding · 1998 · included by 1 of these review
- A clinical evaluation of the effectiveness of including fluoride into an orthodontic bonding adhesive · 1997 · included by 1 of these review
- A clinical evaluation of the effectiveness of a fluoride-releasing visible light-activated bonding system to reduce demineralization… · 1996 · included by 1 of these review
- The Clinical Evaluation of a Fluoride-containing Orthodontic Bonding Material · 1993 · included by 1 of these review
- Millett 2000 · included by 1 of these review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.