International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Longevity of Fluoride Release from Three Different Fluoride Varnishes: An Observational Study

Vaishnavi Singh, Sathyajith Naik, Pallavi Vashisth, Shivangi Sharma, Ankita Chandak, Jean N Murry

Keywords : Artificial saliva, Caries, Dentinal hypersensitivity, Enamel Pro varnish, Enamelast varnish, Fluoride varnish, Fluor Protector varnish

Citation Information : Singh V, Naik S, Vashisth P, Sharma S, Chandak A, Murry JN. Comparative Evaluation of Longevity of Fluoride Release from Three Different Fluoride Varnishes: An Observational Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (3):341-345.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2778

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Introduction: The cycles of demineralization and remineralization result in a dynamic process of caries development. Caries are prevented by the shift in the balance from demineralization to remineralization at the tooth-oral fluid interface with the help of salivary fluoride levels (in parts per million). The advantages of fluoride varnish application over other substitutes like dentifrices, mouthrinses, gels, or foams are that varnishes are well tolerated by infants, young children, or children with special healthcare needs and have prolonged therapeutic effects. This study was formulated to evaluate and compare the longevity of fluoride release from different fluoride varnishes, namely Fluor Protector, Enamelast, and Enamel Pro varnish. Aim: To evaluate and compare the longevity of fluoride release from three different fluoride varnishes. Materials and methods: The study samples comprised 72 healthy permanent maxillary anterior teeth. The teeth were divided into four groups, with eighteen teeth in each group. The surfaces of all teeth were then covered by different colored nail varnish according to the respective group, except for a 3 × 3 mm window on the facial (labial) surface of the crown, where the test materials were applied according to their respective group. In group I, Fluor Protector varnish; in group II, Enamelast varnish; and in group III, Enamel Pro varnish was applied. Group IV was the control group; hence, no test material was applied. All specimens were then stored in plastic containers with a pH of 7.2 in artificial saliva at room temperature. The specimens were transferred into new plastic containers after 1 day, containing fresh artificial saliva, and solutions from previous plastic containers were taken for fluoride analysis. This process was repeated sequentially to analyze the amount of fluoride released in ppm from the specimens at the end of 1, 3, and 6 months. Statistical analysis: Analysis was performed on Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (Windows version 22.0). Results: Conventionally used 1.5% ammonium fluoride varnish, that is, Fluor Protector varnish, showed the least release of fluoride (0.03 ± 0.0 ppm), while resin carrier-based 5% sodium fluoride varnish, that is, Enamelast varnish showed a good amount of fluoride release for 6 months continuously, that is, (0.16 ± 0.06 ppm) at last follow-up. Enamel Pro varnish, which has 5% sodium fluoride with amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP) formula, was found to be the best varnish as it released the maximum amount of fluoride in ppm in artificial saliva for up to 3 months (0.32 ± 0.08) but less than Enamelast varnish only at 6 months follow-up that is 0.09 ± 0.03 ppm. Conclusion: The present study concludes that based on the amount of fluoride released for 6 months duration, Enamel Pro varnish, followed by Enamelast varnish and Fluor Protector varnish, are advisable to apply for caries prevention.

PDF Share
  1. Virupaxi SG, Roshan NM, Poornima P, et al. Comparative evaluation of longevity of fluoride release from three different fluoride varnishes - an invitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(8):ZC33–ZC36. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/19209.8242
  2. Schemahorn BR, Wood GD, Mc Hale W, et al. Comparison of fluoride uptake into tooth enamel from two fluoride varnishes containing different calcium phosphate sources. J Clin Dent 2011;22(2):51–54.
  3. Vaikuntam J. Fluoride varnishes: should we be using them? Pediatr Dent J 2000;22(6):513–516.
  4. Bansal A, Ingle NA, Kaur N, et al. Recent advancements in fluoride: a systematic review. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2015;5(5):341–346. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.165927
  5. Abdoli E, Javadinejad S, Khosravanifard B. Comparison of fluoride uptake into dental enamel from two types of sodium fluoride varnishes (in vitro). J Res Dent Sci 2015;11(4):215–220.
  6. Bonetti D, Clarkson JE. Fluoride varnish for caries prevention: efficacy and implementation. Caries Res 2016;50(Suppl 1):45–49. DOI: 10.1159/000444268
  7. Comar LP, Souza BM, Grizzo LT, et al. Evaluation of fluoride release from experimental TiF4 and NaF varnishes in vitro. J Appl Oral Sci 2014;22(2):138–143. DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720130574
  8. Pańczyszyn DP, Kaczmarek U. Fluoride release from fluoride varnish under in vitro and in vivo conditions. Dent Med Probl 2017;54(4):327–331.
  9. Epple M, Enax J, Meyer F. Prevention of caries and dental erosion by fluorides-a critical discussion based on physico-chemical data and principles. Dent J (Basel) 2022;10(1). DOI: 10.3390/dj10010006
  10. Seppä L. Fluoride varnishes in caries prevention. Med Princ Pract 2004;13(6):307–311. DOI: 10.1159/000080466
  11. Attiguppe P, Malik N, Ballal S, et al. CPP-ACP and fluoride: a synergism to combat caries. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019;12(2):120–125. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1608
  12. Godoi FA, Carlos NR, Bridi EC, et al. Remineralizing effect of commercial fluoride varnishes on artificial enamel lesions. Braz Oral Res 2019;33:e044. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0044
  13. Zabokova-Bilbilova E, Sotirovska-Ivkovska A, Evrosimovska B, et al. Effect of fluoride varnish on demineralization adjacent to orthodontic brackets. Balk J Stom 2012;16:157–160.
  14. Omitola O, Arigbede A. Prevalence of dental caries among adult patients attending a tertiary dental institution in the South-South region of Nigeria. Port Harcourt Med J 2011;6(1):52–58.
  15. Urzua I, Mendoza C, Arteaga O, et al. Dental caries prevalence and tooth loss in Chilean adult population: first national dental examination survey. Int J Dent 2012;2012:810170. DOI: 10.1155/2012/810170
  16. Agbelusi GA, Jeboda SO. Oral health status of 12-year-old Nigerian children. West Afr J Med 2006;25(3):195–198. DOI: 10.4314/wajm.v25i3.28277
  17. Roopa KB, Pathak S, Poornima P, et al. White spot lesion: a literature review. J Pediatr Dent 2015;3(1):1. DOI: 10.4103/2321-6646.151839
  18. Newbrun E. Topical fluorides in caries prevention and management: a North American perspective. J Dent Edu 2001;65(10):1078–1083.
  19. Corona SA, Nascimento TN, Catirse AB, et al. Clinical evaluation of low-level laser therapy and fluoride varnish for treating cervical dentinal hypersensitivity. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(12):1183–1189. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2003.01185.x
  20. Zero DT, Raubertas RF, Fu J, et al. Fluoride concentrations in plaque, whole saliva, and ductal saliva after application of home-use topical fluorides [published erratum appears in J Dent Res 1993 Jan;72(1):87]. J Dent Res 1992;71(11):1768–1775. DOI: 10.1177/00220345920710110201
  21. Nelson DG, Jongebloed WL, Arends J. Morphology of enamel surfaces treated with topical fluoride agents: SEM considerations. J Dent Res 1983;62(12):1201–1208. DOI: 10.1177/00220345830620120501
  22. de Bruyn H, Arends J. Fluoride varnishes: a review. J Biol Buccale 1987;15(2):71–82.
  23. Nalbantgil D, Oztoprak MO, Cakan DG, et al. Prevention of demineralization around orthodontic brackets using two different fluoride varnishes. Eur J Dent 2013;7(1):41–47.
  24. Seubert A, Frenzel W, Schäfer GH, et al. Sample preparation techniques for ion chromatography. Metrohm 2021;2:1–12.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.