Question · asked by 1 review

nCaF2 primer vs Control Transbond primer: White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent)

Population
Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)
Intervention
nCaF2 primer
Comparison
Control Transbond primer
Outcome
White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent)

A single small split-mouth RCT found the nCaF2-containing primer reduced demineralization (DIAGNOdent) but showed no significant clinical white spot lesion difference at debonding (ungraded).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Calcium fluoride nanoparticle (nCaF2)-containing orthodontic primer vs Conventional primer (Transbond)
Enamel demineralization / white spot lesions (DIAGNOdent, photographic scoring) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35) · 1, 3 and 6 months (during treatment to debonding), Orthodontic clinical practice (in-vivo human clinical trials); adolescents and adults
A single small split-mouth RCT found the nCaF2-containing primer reduced demineralization (DIAGNOdent) but showed no significant clinical white spot lesion difference at debonding (ungraded).
Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) All outcomes
Al Tuma 2023 (1 split-mouth RCT, 31 patients / 310 teeth): DIAGNOdent scores significantly favored the nCaF2 primer at 1, 3 and 6 months (p=0.000) and S. mutans count differed at 1 month; no significant difference in…1 study · 31 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

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.

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.