M Beerens

EFFECTS OF MI PASTE PLUS ® : A 3-MONTHS FOLLOW-UP 4 61 Stringent oral hygiene and product use All participants, receiving either CPP-ACPF paste or a control paste, received the same verbal hygiene instruction by a dental hygienist. They were advised and informed how to brush properly using a fluoridated dentifrice (i.e. at least twice a day, either with a hand toothbrush or an electric toothbrush for at least 2 min) and that no additional fluoride was advised or should be applied. The referring dentists were informed that their patients were participating in the study and were asked not to administer additional fluoride during this investigation. They were further asked to contact the study investigator in the event that restorations weremade on the buccal surfaces. The referring dentist was informed during this 1-year study if the investigator visually detected and/ or suspected occlusal and proximal enamel/ dentine caries. The participants were instructed to use their respective paste once a day at bedtime. Verbal and written instructions were given to the patient. They were informed that the paste should be applied to the tooth surfaces using a clean, dry finger. A sufficient amount of paste was to be applied to the upper and the lower teeth. A pea-size amount for each arch was the minimum amount required. The pastes were to be kept in the mouth for as long as possible. Subjects were asked not to rinse afterwards. Compliance was checked by questions asked on each visit about the frequency of tooth brushing and application of the study paste and how often, and when these were forgotten. Furthermore, subjects were asked to bring their study paste at each visit. QLF imaging QLF images were captured using an intra-oral fluorescence camera (QLF/Clin; Inspektor Reseach Systems, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) with dedicated software (inspektor pro version 3.0.0.42; Inspektor Research Systems). To ensure that the same area of tooth surface was analysed at each time-point, the analysis patch and surface contour were copied and then matched for size, orientation, and location, as described previously (Mattousch et al. , 2007). Pixels inside the patch were considered as part of the lesion when the relative fluorescence loss exceeded a 5% threshold (Al-Khateeb et al. , 1998). Images were captured after plaque removal from the buccal surfaces. Images were analysed for fluorescence loss (DF), size of lesion area (A), and integrated fluorescence loss (IFL) at the T1, T2, and T3 time-points. The images