Background Slow-release fluoride devices have been investigated as a potentially cost-effective method of reducing dental caries in people with high risk of disease. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of slow-release fluoride devices on preventing, arresting, or reversing the progression of carious lesions on all surface types of primary (deciduous) and permanent teeth. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 13 August 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 13 August 2014), and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 13 August 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and theWorld Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We first published the review in 2006. The update in 2013 found 302 abstracts, but none of these met the inclusion criteria of the review. Selection criteria Parallel 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 We conducted data collection and analysis using standard Cochrane review methods. At least two review authors independently performed all the key steps in the review such as screening of abstracts, application of inclusion criteria, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We resolved discrepancies through discussions or arbitration by a third or fourth review author. Main results We found no evidence comparing slow-release fluoride devices against other types of fluoride therapy. We found only one double-blind RCT involving 174 children comparing a slow-release fluoride device (glass beads with fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth) against control (glass beads without fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth). This study was assessed to be at high risk of bias. The study recruited children from seven schools in an area of deprivation that had low levels of fluoride in the water. The mean age at the beginning of the study was 8.8 years and at the termination was 10.9 years. DMFT in permanent teeth or dmft in primary teeth was greater than one at the start of the study and greater than one million colony-forming units of Streptococcus mutans per millilitre of saliva. Although 132 children were still included in the trial at the two-year completion point, examination and statistical analysis was performed on only the 63 children (31 in intervention group, 32 in control group) who had retained the beads (retention rate was 47.7% at two years). Among these 63 children, caries increment was reported to be statistically significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (DMFT: mean difference -0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.21; DMFS: mean difference -1.52, 95% CI -2.68 to -0.36 (very low quality evidence)). Although this difference was clinically significant, it only holds true for those children who maintain the fluoride beads; over 50% of children did not retain the beads. Harms were not reported within the trial report. Evidence for other outcomes sought in this review (progression to of caries lesion, dental pain, healthcare utilisation data) were also not reported. Authors' conclusions There is insufficeint evidence to determine the caries-inhibiting effect of slow-release fluoride glass beads. The body of evidence available is of very low quality and there is a potential overestimation of benefit to the average child. The applicability of the findings to the wider population is unclear; the study had included children from a deprived area that had low levels of fluoride in drinking water, and were considered at high risk of carries. In addition, the evidence was only obtained from children who still had the bead attached at two years (48% of all available children); children who had lost their slow-release fluoride devices earlier might not have benefited as much from the devices.
