Whitford G M, Adair S M, Hanes C M, Perdue E C, Russell C M
Pediatr Dent. 1995 May-Jun;17(3):199-203.
This crossover study with 46 child dental patients compared two topical APF products, a gel and a foam, with respect to the amounts of product and fluoride (F) applied, salivary F concentrations, and enamel F uptake. Half the subjects were treated for 4 min with the gel first and the other half with the foam. After approximately 16 days, each patient received a second treatment using the other product. An acid-etch enamel biopsy was performed and whole saliva samples were collected before and after each treatment. Significantly less F was applied to the teeth and retained by the subjects when the APF foam was used. Salivary F concentrations after treatment with the gel were higher than after treatment with the foam. The differences in enamel F uptake at both 15 min and 16 days after the APF applications, however, were not significant. We concluded that: 1) the two products are equivalent with respect to enamel F uptake; 2) only about one-fifth as much of the foam product is required for adequate coverage of the teeth, which significantly reduces F exposure and retention by the patient.
这项交叉研究涉及46名儿童牙科患者，比较了两种局部应用的含氟磷酸（APF）产品——一种凝胶和一种泡沫——在产品用量、氟（F）含量、唾液氟浓度以及牙釉质氟摄取方面的差异。一半受试者先用凝胶治疗4分钟，另一半先用泡沫治疗。大约16天后，每位患者使用另一种产品进行第二次治疗。每次治疗前后均进行酸蚀牙釉质活检并采集全唾液样本。使用APF泡沫时，涂覆在牙齿上并被受试者保留的氟显著减少。用凝胶治疗后的唾液氟浓度高于用泡沫治疗后。然而，在APF应用后15分钟和16天，牙釉质氟摄取的差异并不显著。我们得出以下结论：1）两种产品在牙釉质氟摄取方面相当；2）牙齿充分覆盖所需的泡沫产品量仅约为凝胶产品的五分之一，这显著减少了患者的氟暴露和氟保留。
