Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM39397759
Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed Orthodontic Treatment? A Systematic Review.
El Helou Marwan, Chakar Sandra, Nicolas Emmanuel, et al. · The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2024 · PubMed · doi:10.3290/j.jad.b5781299
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
33
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
12
linked below
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 33 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Humans undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment; only in-vivo studies and clinical trials on humans (in-vitro, animal, and non-clinical/observational designs excluded) | 12 studies; 550 participants (ages 12 to 35); more than 2,000 teeth/tooth surfaces |
| Intervention | Orthodontic bonding systems (adhesives, primers, bonding techniques), including nanoparticle- and fluoride-modified materials | nCaF2 primer; ACP adhesive; TiO2/chitosan nanoparticle adhesives; RM-GIC; fluoride-releasing primers (Opal Seal, Clearfil Protect Bond); one-step self-adhesive resin (GC Ortho Connect); indirect bonding with flowable composite; adhesive precoated flash-free brackets |
| Comparison | Conventional bonding systems / adhesives / primers | Conventional primers/adhesives (Transbond XT / Transbond primer); direct bonding; conventional brackets |
| Outcomes | Primary: efficacy of orthodontic bonding systems in preventing white spot lesions. Secondary: WSL occurrence/prevalence; participant characteristics; intervention characteristics | White spot lesions / enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent, QLF, micro-CT, photographic scoring); Streptococcus mutans counts; bracket bond-failure rates |
| Study designs | In-vivo studies and clinical trials on humans (RCTs assessed with RoB2 and non-randomized studies of interventions assessed with ROBINS-I) | RCTs (single-/multicenter; double-/triple-blind; split-mouth; parallel) and non-randomized studies (prospective clinical, in-vivo) (n=12; 8 RCTs and 4 non-randomized) |
| Timing | Not specified (during fixed orthodontic treatment) | Follow-up varied (about 8 weeks to 6 months) |
Search date: October 2023. Databases: PubMed/MEDLINE; Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL); EM Premium
Questions and results
nCaF2 primer vs Control Transbond primer
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Photographic white spot lesion score Before and after treatment nCaF2 primer showed no clinical photographic WSL difference at debonding, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | No significant differences in the WSLs photographic scores of the control group with the contralateral nCaF2 group before and after bonding. | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |
Enamel demineralization / white spot lesions (DIAGNOdent, photographic scoring) 1, 3 and 6 months (during treatment to debonding) Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35) 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). Source: Table 1 (Al Tuma 2023); Results (Effective in reducing WSLs); Discussion (Calcium fluoride nanoparticle primer) · same question in other reviews | 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 participants | Ungraded |
Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) 1, 3, and 6 months after bonding nCaF2 primer favored lower demineralization scores, but certainty was not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | Statistically significant scores in favor of the nCaF2 primer at T1, T3, and T6 (p-value = 0.000). | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |
Streptococcus mutans count 1, 3, and 6 months after bonding nCaF2 primer differed in S. mutans count only at T1, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | Statistically significant difference in bacterial count between the two primers only at T1 (p-value = 0.000). | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |
Amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP)-containing light-cure adhesive vs Conventional adhesive (Transbond XT)
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent) 1 and 6 months A single triple-blinded RCT found the ACP-containing adhesive reduced enamel demineralization versus a conventional adhesive over 6 months (ungraded). Source: Table 1 (Alshammari 2019); Results (Effective in reducing WSLs); Discussion (Amorphous calcium phosphate adhesives) · same question in other reviews | Alshammari 2019 (1 triple-blinded RCT, 26 patients / 255 teeth): DIAGNOdent demineralization scores were lower with ACP than control at 1 month (2.58 +/-1.11 vs 3.39 +/-1.29) and 6 months (3.41 +/-1.11 vs 4.32… | 1 study · 26 participants | Ungraded |
Enamel demineralization score 6 months after bonding Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment ACP adhesive had lower demineralization scores at 6 months, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | At T2, the control group had an average score of 4.32 (±2.32), while the ACP group continued to exhibit a lower average score of 3.41 (±1.11) (p-value of 0.000). | 1 study · 26 participants | Ungraded |
Enamel demineralization score 1 month after bonding Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment ACP adhesive had lower demineralization scores at 1 month, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | At T1, the control group had an average demineralization score of 3.39 (±1.29), whereas the ACP group had a notably lower average score of 2.58 (±1.11) (p-value of 0.000). | 1 study · 26 participants | Ungraded |
Indirect bonding with flowable adhesive (Opal Bond MV) vs Direct bonding with Transbond XT
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
White spot lesion formation measured by QLF Before and after treatment Indirect bonding with a flowable adhesive favored less QLF-measured demineralization, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | The DB group exhibited significantly higher loss of fluorescence and degree of demineralization compared to the IB group between T0 and T1, with notable differences in specific quadrants (p <0.05 for ΔF and ΔF max). | 1 study · 51 participants | Ungraded |
White spot lesion formation (QLF: fluorescence loss, lesion area) Before and after treatment (T0 to T1) Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35) A single RCT found indirect bonding with flowable composite reduced white spot lesion formation versus direct bonding (ungraded). Source: Table 1 (Atilla 2020); Results (Effective in reducing WSLs); Discussion (Indirect bonding with flowable composites) · same question in other reviews | Atilla 2020 (1 single-blind parallel RCT, 51 patients): the direct-bonding group had significantly greater loss of fluorescence and demineralization and larger lesion areas than the indirect-bonding (flowable… | 1 study · 51 participants | Ungraded |
Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Resin adhesive (Transbond XT)
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
First-time bracket failure Before and after treatment Resin-modified glass ionomer cement showed no difference in first-time bracket failure, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | No differences were observed in the proportions of patients experiencing first-time bracket failures when participants were bonded with either resin adhesive or RM-GIC (p > 0.05). | 1 study · 197 participants | Ungraded |
New white spot lesion incidence (and first-time bracket bond failure) During fixed appliance treatment Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35) A single multicenter RCT found resin-modified glass-ionomer cement did not reduce new white spot lesions or bond failures versus conventional composite (ungraded). Source: Table 1 (Benson 2019); Results (Similar effects); Discussion (Resin-modified glass ionomer) · same question in other reviews | Benson 2019 (1 multicenter single-blind RCT, 197 patients): no difference in the proportion of patients with new WSLs or first-time bracket failures between RM-GIC and resin adhesive (p>0.05). No meta-analysis performed. | 1 study · 197 participants | Ungraded |
Fluoride-releasing primers/adhesives (Opal Seal; Clearfil Protect Bond) vs Conventional primer/adhesive (Transbond XT)
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
White spot lesions / enamel demineralization (photographic scoring, DIAGNOdent, micro-CT) 8 weeks to full treatment (to debonding) Across three small non-randomized studies, fluoride-releasing primers (Opal Seal, Clearfil) showed no consistent clinical advantage over conventional primers in preventing white spot lesions (ungraded). Source: Table 1 (Comert 2020; Oz 2019; Oz 2017); Results (Similar effects); Discussion (Fluoride-releasing primers) · same question in other reviews | Three non-randomized studies (Comert 2020 n=56; Oz 2019 n=35; Oz 2017 n=15) showed no consistent clinical advantage. Comert: no significant difference in photographic WSL severity or area, although DIAGNOdent favored… | 3 studies · 106 participants | Ungraded |
White spot lesion area During orthodontic treatment Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment Opal Seal showed no significant difference in WSL area, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | There was no significant difference in the WSL area between the two groups, with the mean WSL area measuring 161.3 mm2 in the Opal Seal group and 1361.2 mm2 in the conventional group. | 1 study · 56 participants | Ungraded |
DIAGNOdent white spot lesion measurement During orthodontic treatment Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment Opal Seal had fewer DIAGNOdent-measured lesions, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | Opal Seal group showed fewer WSLs compared to the Transbond group, with initial demineralization rates of 1.3% and 3.9%, and caries lesion rates of 0.2% and 1.3%, respectively (p <0.03). | 1 study · 56 participants | Ungraded |
Photographic white spot lesion severity During orthodontic treatment Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment Opal Seal showed no difference in photographic WSL severity, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | WSL severity in digital photographs: no significant difference between the two groups (p >0.05). | 1 study · 56 participants | Ungraded |
Bracket failure During orthodontic treatment Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment Opal Seal showed no difference in bracket failure, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | No significant differences were observed in bracket failure rates among different primers, dental arches, bracket types, or sexes. | 1 study · 56 participants | Ungraded |
Antibacterial S. mutans reduction only in Farzanegan (chitosan+TiO2); Mollabashi (TiO2-only) showed no significant antibacterial effect - not attributable to TiO2 alone vs Conventional adhesive/composite (Transbond XT)
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Antibacterial effect (Streptococcus mutans count, real-time PCR) 1 day to 6 months · Antibacterial (S. mutans) The antibacterial (S. mutans) effect of TiO2 nanoparticles was conflicting across two RCTs (ungraded). Source: Table 1 (Farzanegan 2021; Mollabashi 2022); Results (Mixed results); Discussion (TiO2 nanoparticles) · same question in other reviews | Two RCTs gave conflicting antibacterial results: Farzanegan 2021 reported a significant decrease in S. mutans with the chitosan plus TiO2 adhesive (p=0.01 lateral incisors; p=0.001 second premolars); Mollabashi 2022… | 2 studies · 64 participants | Ungraded |
Enamel demineralization / white spot lesion prevention (DIAGNOdent, enamel mineral content) 1 day to 6 months Two small RCTs gave inconsistent results for TiO2-modified adhesives/composites on enamel demineralization (one favorable on DIAGNOdent, one no difference in mineral content); ungraded. Source: Table 1 (Farzanegan 2021; Mollabashi 2022); Results (Mixed results); Discussion (TiO2 nanoparticles) · same question in other reviews | Two RCTs (Farzanegan 2021 n=24; Mollabashi 2022 n=40): Mollabashi reported DIAGNOdent readings significantly lower on the TiO2 side than the control side (p<0.001); Farzanegan reported no significant difference in… | 2 studies · 64 participants | Ungraded |
Streptococcus mutans count 1 day, 2 months, and 6 months after bonding Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment Chitosan and TiO2 adhesive reduced S. mutans counts, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | Experimental group: significant decrease in S. mutans count was observed at the time points of 1 day, 2 months, and 6 months for both maxillary lateral incisor (p = 0.01) and maxillary second premolar teeth (p = 0.001). | 1 study · 24 participants | Ungraded |
Enamel mineral content 1 day, 2 months, and 6 months after bonding Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment Chitosan and TiO2 adhesive showed no enamel mineral-content difference, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | There were no significant differences in enamel mineral content between the experimental group and control group at all time points. | 1 study · 24 participants | Ungraded |
TiO2-modified composite (1 wt.%) vs Control composite in contralateral quadrant
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Streptococcus mutans population 1 to 6 months after bonding TiO2-modified composite showed no S. mutans difference, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | No statistically significant difference between the S. mutans populations on the control and test sides at any time point. | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
White spot lesion development (QLF: mineral loss, lesion area/depth, new lesions) 2 and 4 months Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35) A single RCT found the one-step adhesive without a primer (GC Ortho Connect) produced more and more severe white spot lesions than conventional multi-step systems (ungraded). Source: Table 1 (Horan 2023); Results (Ineffective in reducing WSLs); Discussion (Self-adhesive orthodontic resin GC Ortho Connect) · same question in other reviews | Horan 2023 (1 three-arm RCT, 75 patients): the one-step adhesive without primer (GC Ortho Connect) had a significantly higher WSL incidence and larger, deeper lesions than both the three-step and self-etch systems… | 1 study · 75 participants | Ungraded |
Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) 1 to 6 months after bonding TiO2-modified composite favored lower DIAGNOdent scores, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | Mean readings were significantly greater on the control side than on the experimental side (p < 0.001) at all time points except at baseline. | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Self-etch primer bonding system (3M Transbond Plus) vs Conventional three-step bonding system (3M Transbond XT)
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
White spot lesion incidence 2 and 4 months after treatment start The self-etch primer system had higher WSL incidence than the conventional system, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | Group 2 (3M Transbond Plus) had a significantly higher incidence of WSLs than Group 1 (3M Transbond XT) (p <0.05). | 1 study · 75 participants | Ungraded |
Enamel demineralization / white spot lesions (DIAGNOdent, QLF) 1 to 6 months (to debonding) Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35) Two studies found adhesive flash-free brackets did not clinically reduce enamel demineralization or white spot lesions versus conventional brackets, though they reduced pathogenic bacteria (ungraded). Source: Table 1 (Tan 2020; Yetkiner 2019); Results (Similar effects); Discussion (Adhesive precoated flash-free brackets) · same question in other reviews | Two studies (Tan 2020 split-mouth, n=30; Yetkiner 2019 RCT, n=50): no statistically significant difference in demineralization between flash-free and conventional/APC brackets (Tan p>0.05; Yetkiner delta-F not… | 2 studies · 80 participants | Ungraded |
One-step adhesive bonding system (GC Ortho Connect) vs Conventional three-step bonding system (3M Transbond XT)
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
White spot lesion incidence, area, and depth 2 and 4 months after treatment start GC Ortho Connect had more frequent, larger, and deeper WSLs, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | Group 3 (GC Ortho Connect) showed a significantly higher incidence than both groups (p < 0.001). Group 3 (GC Ortho Connect) also had larger lesion areas and deeper lesions compared to other groups (p < 0.001). | 1 study · 75 participants | Ungraded |
Clearfil Protect Bond antibacterial fluoride-releasing primer vs Transbond XT conventional primer
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
White spot lesion incidence Before and after orthodontic treatment Clearfil Protect Bond showed no difference in WSL incidence, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | The incidence of WSLs in the Clearfil (CF) group was 8.03%, while in the Transbond (TB) group, it was 9.24% with no significant difference (p = 0.82). | 1 study · 35 participants | Ungraded |
Bracket failure During orthodontic treatment Clearfil Protect Bond showed no difference in bracket failure, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | No statistically significant difference in bond failure rates was observed between quadrants bonded with Clearfil (CF) and those bonded with the conventional primer (p = 0.316). | 1 study · 35 participants | Ungraded |
Clearfil Protect Bond vs Transbond XT conventional adhesive
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
White spot lesion rate and volume 8 weeks after bonding Clearfil Protect Bond showed no WSL-rate difference versus conventional adhesive, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | There was no significant difference among the WSL rates of the Clearfil, Opal Seal, and Transbond XT adhesives (p > 0.05). | 1 study · 15 participants | Ungraded |
Opal Seal fluoride-releasing adhesive vs Transbond XT conventional adhesive
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
White spot lesion rate and volume 8 weeks after bonding Opal Seal showed no significant difference in WSL rate or volume, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | The WSL volume was lower in the Opal Seal group than in the Clearfil and Transbond XT groups, but there was no significant difference among the groups (p > 0.05). | 1 study · 15 participants | Ungraded |
Adhesive precoated flash-free brackets vs Conventional ceramic brackets
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) Baseline, 1 month, and 6 months after bonding Adhesive precoated flash-free brackets showed no demineralization difference, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | Intergroup evaluation showed that there were no statistically significant differences in demineralization measurements between all sides of the conventional and flash-free brackets at all the time intervals (p >0.05). | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Adhesive flash-free ceramic brackets vs Adhesive precoated ceramic brackets
Population: Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Enamel demineralization (QLF ΔF) Baseline to debonding Flash-free brackets showed no clinical WSL reduction, with certainty not graded. Source: Table 1 · same question in other reviews | ΔF values (T0-debonding) were not statistically significantly different between the groups. | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Comparison
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pathogenic bacteria / plaque composition around brackets (fewer pathogenic bacteria with flash-free vs APC; comparable plaque quantity) | no estimate extracted | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMSTAR 2 appraisal
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Yes | no |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | Yes | No | no |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: Yes | NRSI: Yes · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: N/A | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | N/A | N/A | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | N/A | N/A | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | High | Low | no |
Included primary studies 12
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comert et al. 2020 Clinical effect of a fluoride-releasing and rechargeable primer in reducing white spot lesions during orthodontic treatment DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.06.013 | 1 other review | Photographic white spot lesion severity | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Al Tuma et al. 2023 Effect of calcium fluoride nanoparticles in prevention of demineralization during orthodontic fixed appliance treatment: a randomized… DOI:10.1093/ejo/cjac055 | this review only | Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Alshammari et al. 2019 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Enamel demineralization score | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Atilla et al. 2020 A comparative assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes using the quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) method between direct… DOI:10.1093/ejo/cjz058 | this review only | White spot lesion formation (QLF: fluorescence loss, lesion area) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Benson et al. 2019 Resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs composite for orthodontic bonding: A multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled trial DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.09.005 | this review only | New white spot lesion incidence (and first-time bracket bond failure) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Farzanegan et al. 2021 Effect of the addition of Chitosan and TiO <sub>2</sub> nanoparticles on antibacterial properties of an orthodontic composite in fixed… DOI:10.1088/2057-1976/ac0609 | this review only | Streptococcus mutans count | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Horan et al. 2023 Comparison of three orthodontic bonding systems in white spot lesion development: a randomized clinical trial. PMID:37017436 | this review only | White spot lesion development (QLF: mineral loss, lesion area/depth, new lesions) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Mollabashi et al. 2022 Evaluation of Nano TiO2 Modified Orthodontic Composite Effects on S. mutans Population and Enamel Demineralization in Fixed Orthodontic… DOI:10.1007/s12011-023-03559-6 | this review only | Streptococcus mutans count | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Oz et al. 2017 In vivo effect of antibacterial and fluoride-releasing adhesives on enamel demineralization around brackets: A micro-CT study. PMID:28906138 | this review only | Photographic white spot lesion severity | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Oz et al. 2019 Effectiveness of an antibacterial primer used with adhesive-coated brackets on enamel demineralization around brackets: an in vivo study. PMID:30982931 | this review only | Photographic white spot lesion severity | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Tan et al. 2020 Effects of adhesive flash-free brackets on enamel demineralization and periodontal status. PMID:33378441 | this review only | Enamel demineralization / white spot lesions (DIAGNOdent, QLF) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Yetkiner et al. 2019 DOI:10.3290/j.ohpd.a43753 | this review only | Enamel demineralization / white spot lesions (DIAGNOdent, QLF) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match).
| Review | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| Efficacy of sealants and bonding materials during fixed orthodontic treatment to prevent enamel demineralization: a systematic review and… (2021) | 1 | 0.03 |