Chlorhexidine gluconate 0.06% / Sodium fluoride 0.05% mouthwash sugar free

White spot lesions (WSLs) are early clinical stages of enamel demineralization, often related to orthodontic treatment or poor oral hygiene. The use of gels such as fluoride for topical application inhibits demineralization and promotes remineralization of dental tissues through various mechanisms. A variety of therapeutic approaches are available; however, recent research indicates that combined treatment strategies may yield superior clinical outcomes compared to monotherapy. The aim of this study was to critically compare the efficacy of combining multiple treatment techniques for WSLs compared to using these techniques alone. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases according to PRISMA guidelines. The PICO strategy was used to formulate the research question: Which clinical approaches combined or isolated (C) influence the treatment and prevention effectiveness (O) of white spot lesions (I) in humans (P) in the last ten years (T)? Inclusion criteria focused on clinical studies from the last ten years evaluating the combined use of at least two treatment techniques for WSL, resulting in a total of 8 randomized controlled trials selected from an initial pool of 1185 articles. Our results suggest that combined treatment strategies, including resin infiltration with fluoride varnish and ozone therapy combined with fluoride application, demonstrated enhanced efficacy in lesion masking and remineralization compared to single-treatment approaches. CPP-ACP and hydroxyapatite-based creams improved aesthetics, particularly when used alongside fluoride varnish. Our study concluded that the combination of remineralization agents like fluoride gel, infiltrative resins, and antimicrobial treatments offers superior outcomes on white spot lesion treatment than using these techniques alone. However, long-term clinical studies are needed to standardize treatment protocols and confirm durability.

Abstract licence: CC BY

IntroductionFluoride varnishes are widely used in caries prevention, but the rate and duration of fluoride ion release differ depending on material composition and environmental factors.ObjectivesThis systematic review synthesized evidence from in vitro studies on human teeth to identify key factors influencing fluoride release.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in July 2025 in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the terms "fluoride release" AND "varnish" in titles and abstracts. Study selection followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines, predefined eligibility criteria, and was structured according to the PICO framework. Of 484 retrieved records, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed qualitatively.ResultsThe primary outcome was the magnitude and duration of fluoride release from varnishes. Most studies reported peak release within the first 24 h, followed by a marked decline, although some formulations (e.g., Clinpro XT and Duraphat) maintained more stable long-term release. Substantial methodological heterogeneity was observed across studies, including differences in sample type, storage medium, pH, temperature, and measurement protocols, which influenced fluoride release dynamics. Reported secondary outcomes included enamel remineralization, changes in surface properties, and antibacterial activity, with bioactive additives such as CPP-ACP and TCP enhancing preventive effects. Acidic conditions consistently increased fluoride release.ConclusionsThe magnitude and persistence of fluoride release from varnishes depend on both intrinsic material properties and external environmental conditions. Bioactive additives may prolong fluoride availability and provide additional preventive benefits.

Abstract licence: CC BY

AimTo evaluate the effectiveness of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwashes (MW) on plaque and gingivitis scores for patients with gingivitis, in brushing as well as non-brushing situations.MethodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL was conducted to identify clinical and randomised controlled trials comparing CPC and CHX mouthwashes on plaque and gingivitis scores. The staining index was evaluated as a secondary outcome. In addition, the risk of bias was assessed. The data was summarised using a descriptive approach, and whenever possible, a meta-analysis was conducted. The results for brushing and non-brushing studies were presented separately. Grading was applied using the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.ResultsThe search resulted in 424 unique papers, from which 14 full-text papers providing 18 comparisons were selected. Different concentrations of CPC-MW (0.1%, 0.075%, 0.05%) and CHX-MW (0.2%, 0.12%) were used. The risk of bias was estimated to be low, moderate or high for each study. A meta-analysis for non-brushing models showed a significant favour for CHX-MW in plaque index scores (0.55 [95% CI: 0.19; 0.91], p = 0.003). For brushing, no significant differences were found between CPC-MW and CHX-MW. The descriptive analysis supports these findings. CHX-MW tends to stain more than CPC-MW.ConclusionThere is moderate certainty for a small statistically significant favourable effect of CHX-MW over CPC-MW for plaque control in non-brushing situations, but no difference between them for plaque and gingivitis prevention in brushing situations.

Abstract licence: CC BY