This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (28 NOV 2014)

Intervention Review

Slow-release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay

  1. Brian C Bonner1,*,
  2. Jan E Clarkson1,
  3. Lorna Dobbyn2,
  4. Smriti Khanna3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Oral Health Group

Published Online: 18 OCT 2006

Assessed as up-to-date: 8 AUG 2006

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005101.pub2

How to Cite

Bonner BC, Clarkson JE, Dobbyn L, Khanna S. Slow-release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD005101. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005101.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of Dundee, Dental Health Services Research Unit, Dundee, Tayside, UK

  2. 2

    University of Dundee, Dundee Dental School and Hospital, Dundee, UK

  3. 3

    Sheffield, UK

*Brian C Bonner, Dental Health Services Research Unit, University of Dundee, The Mackenzie Building, Kirsty Semple Way, Dundee, Tayside, DD2 4BF, UK.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 18 OCT 2006


This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (28 NOV 2014)



  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Plain language summary
  4. アブストラクト
  5. 摘要


Slow-release fluoride devices have been investigated as a potentially cost-effective method of reducing dental caries in those with high risk of disease.


To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of slow-release fluoride devices on preventing, arresting, or reversing the progression of carious lesions on all surface types of deciduous and permanent teeth.

Search methods

We searched (up until February 2005) multiple electronic databases (Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE), bibliographic references of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), textbooks, review articles, and meta-analyses. Letters were sent to authors of identified RCTs asking for clarifications and unpublished or ongoing research. Relevant journals were handsearched for more recent reports than those obtained from databases.

Selection criteria

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing slow-release fluoride devices with an alternative fluoride treatment, placebo, or no intervention in all age groups. The main outcomes measures sought were changes in numbers of decayed, missing, and filled teeth or surfaces (DMFT/DMFS in permanent teeth or dmft/dmfs in primary teeth) and progression of carious lesions through enamel and into dentine.

Data collection and analysis

Abstracts of all reports identified were considered independently by two review authors and full reports obtained of any potentially relevant articles to allow further assessment for relevance and validity. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two and three review authors respectively, with arbitration by the fourth. Where uncertainty existed, authors were contacted for additional information.

Main results

Only one trial involving 174 children fully met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Although 132 children were still included in the trial at the 2-year completion point, examination and statistical analysis was performed on only the 63 children who had retained the beads. Thirty-one of these were in the intervention group and 32 in the control group.
Amongst these 63 children, caries increment was reported to be statistically significantly lower in the intervention group than in the placebo group (mean difference: -0.72 DMFT, 95% confidence interval -1.23 to -0.21 and -1.52 DMFS, 95% confidence interval -2.68 to -0.36)

Authors' conclusions

There is some evidence of a caries-inhibiting effect of slow-release fluoride glass beads. This evidence is regarded as weak and unreliable because the results were from participants selected on the basis of bead retention rather than an intention-to-treat analysis.


Plain language summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Plain language summary
  4. アブストラクト
  5. 摘要

Slow-release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay

Slowly dissolving fluoride-releasing glass beads may help reduce dental decay if retained in the mouth over time, but retention of the beads is a problem.
This review concludes that slow-release fluoride devices have the potential to protect against tooth decay if they can be kept in place, in the mouth, for 2 years. The evidence, so far, is considered to be weak and unreliable. In a single study a reduction of 0.72 in mean caries increment (assessed as decayed, filled, or missing teeth) compared to control was reported (caries increment in the intervention group was 0.19 versus 0.91 in the control group). However, this analysis excluded 52% of available participants, whose beads had become dislodged.



  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Plain language summary
  4. アブストラクト
  5. 摘要







本レビューでは、Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、EMBASEといった電子データベース、特定のランダム化比較試験の参考文献、教科書、総説、メタアナリシスを2005年2月まで検索した。特定のランダム化比較試験の著者に対して、説明と未発表の研究や進行中の研究について手紙で確認した。関連した雑誌のデータベース未収載の記事を目視(ハンドサーチ)で検索した。










監  訳: 佐々木 好幸,安藤 雄一,JCOHR,2008.4.1

実施組織: 厚生労働省委託事業によりMindsが実施した。

ご注意 : この日本語訳は、臨床医、疫学研究者などによる翻訳のチェックを受けて公開していますが、訳語の間違いなどお気づきの点がございましたら、Minds事務局までご連絡ください。Mindsでは最新版の日本語訳を掲載するよう努めておりますが、編集作業に伴うタイム・ラグが生じている場合もあります。ご利用に際しては、最新版(英語版)の内容をご確認ください。



  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Plain language summary
  4. アブストラクト
  5. 摘要







我們了搜尋2005年2月前的多種電子資料庫(Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE),挑出的隨機對照試驗(randomised controlled trials)的參考文獻目錄、教科書、回顧性文章及Meta分析(metaanalyses)。我們有寄信向挑出的隨機對照試驗的作者詢問相關問題及未發表或正在進行的研究。除了從資料庫得到的資料外,我們也有直接從相關期刊查閱最近的一些報告。


隨機或半隨機對照試驗比較所有年齡層在使用緩釋性氟化物與其它氟化物治療,安慰劑及不進行治療的結果。實驗的主要結果是評估齲齒,缺失和復形的牙齒或表面數目(恆牙的齲失補牙decay missing filling tooth/齲失補牙面 decay missing filling surface或乳牙dmft/dmfs)的改變,以及齲齒區域由牙釉質進展至牙本質的情形。




在本篇回顧中收集到的資料只有一個包含174個小朋友的實驗完全符合標準。雖然這個實驗在2年結束的時候仍包含了132個小朋友,但只有63個小朋友檢查後仍有玻璃微珠的存在,並進行數據的分析;其中31個小朋友是之前有進行治療的,另外32個是控制組。在這63位小朋友中,介入組的齲齒增加較安慰劑組少,且達到統計上的顯著(mean difference: −0.72 DMFT, 95% confidence interval −1.23 to −0.21 and −1.52 DMFS, 95% confidence interval −2.68 to −0.36)


有部分證據顯示長效氟化玻璃微珠有抑制齲齒的效果.但因為樣本的選擇是以材料的固著性為基礎,而並非以意向式治療分析(intentiontotreat analysis)進行,故所得結果可信程度較低。



此翻譯計畫由臺灣國家衛生研究院(National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan)統籌。