Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Different Toilet Cleaning/Disinfecting Regimens on Reducing the Risk of Exposure to Toilet-Borne Pathogens in American Household Restrooms
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Hygiene
Volume 5
Issue 2
10.3390/hygiene5020023
hygiene-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Effect of Fluoride Mouthwashes on Orthodontic Appliances’ Corrosion and Mechanical Properties: A Scoping Review

by
Miltiadis A. Makrygiannakis
1,2,
Angeliki Anna Gkinosati
3,
Sotirios Kalfas
4,* and
Eleftherios G. Kaklamanos
2,4,5
1
School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
2
School of Dentistry, European University Cyprus, Nicosia 2404, Cyprus
3
The William Harvey Research Institute—Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
4
School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
5
Hamdan Bin Mohammed College of Dental Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences (MBRU), Dubai P.O. Box 505055, United Arab Emirates
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Hygiene 2025, 5(2), 23; https://doi.org/10.3390/hygiene5020023
Submission received: 12 March 2025 / Revised: 10 May 2025 / Accepted: 1 June 2025 / Published: 5 June 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fluoride mouthwashes are often recommended by dental professionals due to their proven benefits for oral hygiene. However, it is vital to acknowledge that these products may have undesirable effects on orthodontic treatment outcomes, particularly by altering the biomechanical properties of orthodontic devices and their components. To gain a comprehensive understanding of this potential issue, an extensive and systematic search was conducted across seven distinct databases. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA ScR) guidelines were followed. Following a detailed evaluation and careful scrutiny of the available evidence, a total of seven relevant studies met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated into the current scoping review. Findings indicated that regular intraoral use of fluoride-containing mouthwashes could lead to heightened corrosion and greater release of metal ions from stainless-steel brackets and nickel–titanium (NiTi) archwires. Additionally, the mechanical properties and structural integrity of titanium–molybdenum alloy (TMA) wires were negatively influenced by exposure to fluoride mouthwashes. Although existing evidence highlights these potential drawbacks, there remains a clear necessity for additional comprehensive research. Given the possibility that fluoride mouthwashes could adversely influence orthodontic treatment effectiveness, orthodontists and dental clinicians must exercise cautious judgment and deliberate consideration when prescribing fluoride-based mouthwashes for patients undergoing orthodontic therapy.

1. Introduction

1.1. Rationale

Orthodontic patients treated with fixed appliances often present an increased risk of caries due to inadequate plaque control [1]. Initial caries lesions may pose more than just an aesthetic concern. Following the removal of fixed orthodontic appliances, approximately a third of these lesions show noticeable improvement, while almost half remain unchanged over time [2]. Most importantly, 15% of the lesions either require or have already undergone restorative treatment within 2 years post-debonding [2]. Epidemiological studies have reported the prevalence and incidence of such lesions to be significant, highlighting the need for careful risk assessment and the implementation of effective caries prevention measures to mitigate risks and ensure better oral health outcomes [3].
Fluoride has been widely recognized as an effective tool for preventing dental caries. It promotes enamel remineralization, prevents demineralization, and has antibacterial properties that target cariogenic biofilms [4,5,6]. Various methods for fluoride delivery exist, including toothpaste, varnishes, and water fluoridation. Among these, fluoride mouthwashes have gained recognition due to their convenience, adaptability, and ability to supplement other preventive measures, which is especially beneficial for individuals at higher risk of caries, such as orthodontic patients [7]. They may contain different concentrations of fluoride in various forms, such as sodium fluoride, amine fluoride, stannous fluoride, acidulated fluoride, etc. [8].
Consistent use of fluoride mouthwashes among children and adolescents has been linked to a significant decrease in the progression of caries in permanent teeth [8]. Using a fluoride mouthwash helps minimize the development of white spot lesions (WSLs) during treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances [9,10,11], although the effect has been reported to vary in populations with low caries prevalence [12]. Improved oral hygiene practices and increased patient compliance are associated with a reduced risk of developing white spot lesions (WSLs) [13].
Aside from the potential advantages of using fluoride-containing products during treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances, there is a possibility that orthodontic materials may interact with fluoride mouthwashes, adversely affecting their surface characteristics and mechanical properties [14,15]. Most existing evidence derives from in vitro studies. However, the intraoral environment is significantly different and more dynamic compared to laboratory conditions [14,15].

1.2. Objectives

The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the clinical evidence regarding the effects of fluoride-containing mouthwashes on the structure and biomechanical properties of orthodontic materials and accessories.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

The present scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by the PRISMA ScR guidelines [16]. This type of literature review systematically summarizes relevant research across a broad spectrum of topics associated with a specific field of interest [17,18]. In general, there are five key stages: (a) inception of a specific research question, (b) searching and detection of relevant studies, (c) inclusion of the most suitable studies, (d) extraction of relevant data, and (e) summary and reporting of the main findings. The review protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework platform: https://osf.io/hz6wk/ (accessed on 30 May 2025).
A search strategy was performed to detect the most relevant studies published from inception until August 2024 regarding the effect of the clinical use of fluoride mouthwashes on orthodontic appliances. The research was guided by a defined PICOS (“Population”-“Intervention”-“Comparator”-“Outcomes”-“Study design”) question: “What is the effect of fluoride mouthrinses (intervention) used by orthodontic patients (population) on the structure and properties of orthodontic appliances (outcome)?”.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion criteria for the selected studies were defined using the Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study Design (PICOS) acronym. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effects of fluoride mouthwashes on various orthodontic appliances and accessories were reviewed. In the included studies, fluoride mouthwashes of any concentration had to be used by patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. Studies in which the administration of fluoride was performed using formulations other than mouthwashes were excluded from further consideration. Case reports, in vitro studies, animal studies, reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were not included.

2.3. Information Sources, Search and Selection of Sources of Evidence

A total of seven databases (Medline, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, EMBASE, and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses) were searched. Also, hand searching was employed for the identification of additional records. The following basic search strategy was employed, with variations, for each of the databases searched: (fluoride OR mouthrinse OR “mouth rinse” OR mouthwash OR “mouth wash”) AND orthodontics. The following Mesh terms were included: “fluoridation”, “fluorides”, “mouthwashes” and “orthodontics”. No restrictions in language, date, or publications status were followed.
Two calibrated investigators (MAM and AAG) conducted the entire search process independently based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached, with input from another author (SK). All identified records were entered into a pre-designed and tested Excel worksheet. All authors performed a detailed review of the worksheet to identify potential mistakes in the dataset. Full-text articles that appeared to be relevant were retrieved and carefully analyzed. The final selection of studies for the scoping review was made by two authors (MAM and AAG), with any disagreements resolved through consensus with the rest of the team.

2.4. Data Charting Process, Data Items and Synthesis of Results

A data extraction process was conducted to generate a descriptive summary of the findings. For each included study, details such as bibliographic information, study design, interventions, results, and key conclusions were recorded. Two authors (MAM and AAG) independently collected these data, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussions with the senior author (EGK). Duplicates were removed using EndNote software. The data were summarized in a table format.

2.5. Risk of Bias

The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [19], and the ROBINS-I tool was used for assessing the risk of bias in non-randomized studies [20]. The information retrieved was used to critically appraise the results of the individual studies.

3. Results

3.1. Selection of Sources of Evidence

The systematic search initially identified 1307 references, from which 126 were excluded as duplicates. Subsequently, another 1167 were eliminated based on their titles and abstracts. The full texts of 14 studies were assessed, and finally, 7 studies were included in this scoping review [21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. The flowchart of the study selection process is depicted in Figure 1.

3.2. Characteristics of Sources of Evidence

The included studies along with their characteritics and major results can be seen in Table 1.
The included studies explored the effects of fluoride-containing mouthwashes on nickel–titanium (NiTi) archwires [21,22,23,24,26], stainless-steel (SS) brackets [25,26], and titanium–molybdenum (TMA) archwires [27]. The mouthwashes used contained fluoride in varying concentrations ranging from 225 to 904 ppm. Outcomes such as surface changes [26], roughness [21,22,23,27], and corrosion [25,26] were investigated. The structure of appliances was evaluated by measuring the content of various elements as well as the release of metal ions inside the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) [25]. Finally, mechanical characteristics were also reported [24,27].

3.3. Risk of Bias Within Studies

Figure 2 and Figure 3 summarize the risk of bias assessment. Regarding the randomized studies, one was considered to have an overall low risk of bias [22], while the rest showed some concerns due to the bias arising from the randomization process. All non-randomized studies were considered at moderate risk of bias.

3.4. Results of Individual Studies

Daily rinsing with fluoride solutions (225 to 904 ppm) for over 1 month resulted in increases in parameters related to the roughness of NiTi wires, compared to brushing with fluoride toothpaste alone [21,22] or a placebo [23]. The increases were more pronounced after using acidulated fluoride solutions [23]. The yield strength of NiTi wires was reported to increase after rinsing with 225 fluoride daily compared to regular oral hygiene, but effects without statistical significance were noted regarding the unloading force and the modulus of elasticity [24].
Increased levels of Ni in the gingival crevicular fluid were found after 4 weeks of using a 225 ppm fluoride mouthwash [25]. Moreover, degradation, cracks, dark spots, and decreased Ni content were observed in NiTi wires and stainless-steel brackets following the administration of a mouthwash with similar fluoride content [26].
Regarding stainless-steel brackets, Chitra et al. (2020) conducted a qualitative assessment of the surface characteristics of brackets. The surfaces of all unused incisor brackets exhibited distinctive white dots formed during manufacturing. Meanwhile, non-fluoridated incisor brackets displayed noticeable pitting across their surfaces. However, fluoridated brackets showed surface striations and dark black spots, suggesting significant degradation due to fluoride exposure [26].
Unused premolar brackets showed similar characteristic white dots resulting from the manufacturing process, similar to the unused incisor brackets. Non-fluoridated premolar brackets had fewer surface irregularities than the fluoridated brackets. In contrast, fluoridated premolar brackets exhibited a combination of white and black spots, indicating greater surface deterioration and irregularities caused by fluoride exposure [26].
Conventional, ion-implanted “low friction” and “Honey Dew” TMA wires demonstrated greater Sa (arithmetical mean height) and Sz (maximum height), an increased load-deflection rate, and decreased tensile strength and modulus of elasticity following intraoral exposure to a 904 ppm fluoride and 3% KNO3 mouthwash. Despite intraoral conditions also significantly increasing surface roughness and deteriorating the mechanical properties of all types of TMA wires, it was the daily use of fluoride mouthwashes that exacerbated the deterioration much more [27].

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of Evidence

The potential for enamel decalcification around orthodontic fixed appliances is a significant concern during orthodontic treatment [1,28,29]. Thus, establishing and following a structured and customized oral hygiene routine for each patient is essential to ensure better oral health outcomes [7]. In this context, fluoride mouthwashes are commonly prescribed as a supporting caries prevention measure [30]. Findings from laboratory studies suggest that mouthwashes containing fluoride can alter the morphology and modify certain mechanical properties of orthodontic appliances. However, these observations may not always align with findings from clinical studies due to differences between experimental conditions and the oral environment. Research conducted in laboratory settings often fails to accurately replicate the complex interactions occurring in the oral environment [31]. Furthermore, disparities in exposure duration and other methodological discrepancies may explain the inconsistencies observed when evaluating the clinical significance of clinical and in vitro results [14,15].
For the past 50 years, fluoride mouthwashes have been widely prescribed to help prevent dental caries. Their primary anti-caries effect comes from their localized action at the tooth-plaque interface, promoting the remineralization of early caries lesions and reducing enamel solubility [32]. Exposure to fluoride solutions has been associated with increased surface roughness in NiTi wires, with acidulated fluoride solutions showing the most significant effect [21,22,23]. Similar surface changes in NiTi wires have also been seen in in vitro studies [33,34,35,36].
Corrosion, which is inevitable in the oral environment, does not necessarily imply a deterioration in the properties of NiTi archwires [37]. The oral cavity presents a highly dynamic and challenging environment for metallic materials, as they are continuously exposed to saliva, fluctuations in pH, temperature variations, mechanical forces, and microbial activity [38]. Saliva functions as an electrolyte, promoting the formation of electro-galvanic cells [38]. Additionally, salivary pH varies significantly, typically influenced by factors such as diet and overall oral health [39]. This fluctuation, combined with the presence of oxygen ions and temperature shifts, creates conditions that favor corrosion [40]. Furthermore, the oral microbiome can contribute to biocorrosion, accelerating the degradation of metallic materials [40,41]. Since intraoral corrosion is inevitable, fluoride mouthwashes may not be the primary factor responsible for changes in the elastic properties of NiTi archwires. Pre-existing defects may act as initiation points for future corrosion despite the protective effects of the titanium oxide layer [42]. Fluoride has been shown to dissolve this titanium oxide layer, leading to localized pitting corrosion [43,44,45]. Chemical interactions between materials used in wire coatings and fluoride formulations may affect the mechanical properties of NiTi wires [46]. These interactions might also explain the differing responses of rhodium-coated NiTi wires to fluoride exposure compared to uncoated wires [24,46].
Comparable findings have been noted regarding fluoride mouthwashes’ influence on ion release from stainless-steel brackets [47], their surface roughness [48], and the frictional properties of stainless-steel wires [49,50]. After exposure to fluoride agents, brackets and archwires become vulnerable to corrosion, leading to the release of metal ions into the oral cavity during orthodontic treatment, with the risk of systemic absorption [25,26].
Nickel ions are released at the highest rate during the first 3 days. After that timepoint, corrosion gradually decreases [51]. The levels of nickel, chromium, titanium, and manganese ions in gingival crevicular fluid return to baseline approximately 6 months after treatment initiation. It is worth mentioning that further research is needed to assess the long-term effects of metal ion release in the oral environment [25]. These ions may have toxic effects on cells and potentially trigger allergic reactions in some individuals. Notably, ions such as nickel, chromium, and cobalt can influence fibroblasts and oral epithelial cells [52]. Nickel, in particular, is a well-established cause of allergic reactions, which may manifest as contact dermatitis or a more widespread systemic reaction. Furthermore, if the concentration of released ions becomes excessive, it can lead to visible enamel discoloration, posing a significant aesthetic concern for patients [52,53].
Additionally, adverse effects on various friction-related parameters within the stainless-steel bracket–NiTi wire complex have been reported [50,54,55,56,57]. A general correlation between surface roughness and friction has been proposed, with corrosion contributing to increased roughness. However, friction is also influenced by several other parameters, including the applied force within the wire-bracket system, the contact angle, and the surface characteristics of the bracket [58]. Numerous studies have examined static and kinetic friction within the bracket-wire system using in vitro models to simulate orthodontic tooth movement. Despite the extensive research conducted, there is still no consensus on the variations in parameters influencing friction. This lack of agreement likely stems from inconsistencies and limitations in research methodologies. Consequently, in vitro studies may not provide a reliable means of accurately assessing the clinical impact of friction in orthodontic treatment [59].
Regarding the mechanical properties of NiTi wires after clinical exposure to fluoride mouthwashes, an increase in yield strength has been observed [24]. However, no statistically significant differences were found in unloading force or modulus of elasticity compared to standard oral hygiene practices. Zibar Belasic and colleagues reported that the load-deflection properties of NiTi wires remained unchanged after clinical exposure to fluoride gels [40]. In contrast, Hammad and co-workers noted a decrease in the modulus of elasticity of NiTi wires following in vitro exposure to a fluoride solution [60], while Srivastava et al. found no significant differences [61].
TMA wires undergo significant corrosion in the presence of stannous fluoride; however, their resistance to sodium fluoride-containing mouthwashes is increased [56]. Compared to other titanium-based alloys, TMA and TiNb form a distinct group in terms of corrosion resistance, with TiNb being the most resistant [56]. A noteworthy finding in the study by Rajendran et al. (2019) was that, after daily intraoral use of fluoride mouth rinse, the load-deflection rate for TMA wires remained significantly elevated, demonstrating statistical significance for both ion-implanted Low Friction and Honey Dew wires. A plausible explanation for the increased load-deflection rate may be attributed to the influence of oral conditions. Repeated cyclic stress, combined with a corrosive environment such as saliva, could render alloys more brittle [27].
Overall, it is evident that potential effects on the mechanical properties of fixed orthodontic appliances could influence clinical practice and the course of treatment. Corrosion and surface alterations may increase friction, which affects the sliding mechanics of orthodontic treatment [62]. High levels of friction complicate orthodontic anchorage control and decrease tooth movement efficiency [63]. From the existing limited material, it appears that fluoride-containing mouthwashes with a lower pH have a greater impact on NiTi wires [23]. Therefore, a clinician might consider avoiding their prescription when NiTi wires are used.

4.2. Strengths and Limitations

This review, although conducted following specific guidelines, has some limitations. Most arise from the nature, methodology, and information drawn from the included studies. Some studies included a low number of participants and administered mouthwashes in different fluoride formulations and concentrations. Subsequently, it is still relatively unclear whether fluoride mouthwashes have a clinically significant effect on orthodontic appliances. Regarding the risk of bias of the included studies, three out of the four randomized studies presented issues in the randomization process, whereas all non-randomized studies had bias due to confounding.
Additionally, it should be noted that fluoride-based adjuvants are strongly recommended for orthodontic patients [64], even if they should not be used immediately prior to bonding, as they can negatively affect the bond strength of orthodontic brackets [65].
Future investigations could emphasize the long-term effects of fluoride mouthwashes, in different formulations and concentrations, on the structural integrity and mechanical properties of various types of fixed orthodontic appliances. Additionally, follow-up studies with extended duration and exploration of alternative materials could be valuable. Furthermore, the synergistic or antagonistic effects of fluoride mouthwashes when interacting with patients’ daily oral hygiene regimens should be examined. Since patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed braces are often at a higher risk of developing carious cavities, primarily because it is more challenging to control plaque [1], it would also be worthwhile to conduct new studies investigating how dysbiosis of the oral microbiota [66] may be influenced. Collecting data from these proposed studies could provide clinicians with insights into the safety and effectiveness of orthodontic treatment.

5. Conclusions

Fluoride mouthwashes might have a clinically significant effect on orthodontic appliances. While they can be used adjunctively for chemical plaque control and to protect against tooth demineralization, their potential to cause corrosion to orthodontic materials raises concerns regarding mechanical and biological issues. Orthodontists should carefully consider all the previously mentioned implications to ensure that the benefits of fluoride do not compromise treatment outcomes. What is clear is that further research is recommended on this topic to obtain solid, clinically significant conclusions. Taking into consideration the widespread use of mouthwashes, future studies should focus on well-established and controlled designs as well as meticulous efforts to eliminate potential bias.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.G.K. and S.K.; methodology, E.G.K. and S.K.; software, E.G.K., S.K., M.A.M. and A.A.G.; validation, E.G.K. and S.K.; formal analysis, M.A.M. and A.A.G.; investigation, M.A.M. and A.A.G.; resources, E.G.K.; data curation, M.A.M. and A.A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.M. and A.A.G.; writing—review and editing, E.G.K., S.K., M.A.M. and A.A.G.; visualization, M.A.M. and A.A.G.; supervision, E.G.K. and S.K.; project administration, E.G.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data presented are included in the studies eligible for the scoping review.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Boersma, J.G.; van der Veen, M.H.; Lagerweij, M.D.; Bokhout, B.; Prahl-Andersen, B. Caries prevalence measured with QLF after treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances: Influencing factors. Caries Res. 2005, 39, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Mattousch, T.J.; van der Veen, M.H.; Zentner, A. Caries lesions after orthodontic treatment followed by quantitative light-induced fluorescence: A 2-year follow-up. Eur. J. Orthod. 2007, 29, 294–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Salerno, C.; Grazia Cagetti, M.; Cirio, S.; Esteves-Oliveira, M.; Wierichs, R.J.; Kloukos, D.; Campus, G. Distribution of initial caries lesions in relation to fixed orthodontic therapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Orthod. 2024, 46, cjae008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Simmer, J.P.; Hardy, N.C.; Chinoy, A.F.; Bartlett, J.D.; Hu, J.C. How fluoride protects dental enamel from demineralization. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Commun. 2020, 10, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Song, H.; Cai, M.; Fu, Z.; Zou, Z. Mineralization pathways of amorphous calcium phosphate in the presence of fluoride. Cryst. Growth Des. 2023, 23, 7150–7158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, Q.; Guan, L.; Guo, J.; Chuan, A.; Tong, J.; Ban, J.; Tian, T.; Jiang, W.; Wang, S. Application of fluoride disturbs plaque microecology and promotes remineralization of enamel initial caries. J. Oral. Microbiol. 2022, 14, 2105022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Heintze, S.D.; Jost-Brinkmann, P.G.; Finke, C.; Miethke, R.R. Oral Health for the Orthodontic Patient; Quintessence: Berlin, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  8. Marinho, V.C.; Chong, L.Y.; Worthington, H.V.; Walsh, T. Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 7, CD002284. [Google Scholar]
  9. van der Kaaij, N.C.; van der Veen, M.H.; van der Kaaij, M.A.; ten Cate, J.M. A prospective, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial on the effects of a fluoride rinse on white spot lesion development and bleeding in orthodontic patients. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2015, 123, 186–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ravi Kiran, K.R.; Sabrish, S.; Mathew, S.; Shivamurthy, P.G.; Sagarkar, R. Effectiveness of amine fluoride mouthwash in preventing white spot lesions during fixed orthodontic therapy—A randomized control trial. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2023, 34, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jha, A.K.; Mahuli, A.V.; Verma, S.K.; Kumar, S.; Prakash, O.; Ekram, S.; Mathur, A.; Mehta, V. Effectiveness of fluoride mouthrinse in prevention of demineralization during fixed orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Orthod. Sci. 2024, 13, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Enerbäck, H.; Lingström, P.; Möller, M.; Nylén, C.; Ödman Bresin, C.; Östman Ros, I.; Westerlund, A. Effect of a mouth rinse and a high-fluoride toothpaste on caries incidence in orthodontic patients: A randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Othod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2022, 162, 6–15.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Geiger, A.M.; Gorelick, L.; Gwinnett, A.J.; Benson, B.J. Reducing white spot lesions in orthodontic populations with fluoride rinsing. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1992, 101, 403–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Eliades, T.; Bourauel, C. Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: The picture we miss and its clinical relevance. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2005, 127, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Eliades, T.; Athanasiou, A.E. In vivo aging of orthodontic alloys: Implications for corrosion potential, nickel release, and biocompatibility. Angle Orthod. 2002, 72, 222–237. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Levac, D.; Colquhoun, H.; O’Brien, K.K. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 2010, 5, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Peters, M.D.; Marnie, C.; Colquhoun, H.; Garritty, C.M.; Hempel, S.; Horsley, T.; Langlois, E.V.; Lillie, E.; O’Brien, K.K.; Tunçalp, Ö; et al. Scoping reviews: Reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A Revised Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sterne, J.A.; Hernán, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; Savović, J.; Berkman, N.D.; Viswanathan, M.; Henry, D.; Altman, D.G.; Ansari, M.T.; Boutron, I.; et al. ROBINS-I: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions. BMJ 2016, 355, i4919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Farrag, O.G.A.E.G.; Shamaa, N.E.A.; Elgameay, W.E.; Bayoumi, D.A. Clinical effect of chlorhexidine and sodium fluoride oncorrosion behavior and surface topography of nitinol orthodontic archwires. BMC Oral Health 2024, 24, 564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Khanloghi, M.; Sheikhzadeh, S.; Khafri, S.; Mirzaie, M. Effect of Different Forms of Fluoride Application on Surface Roughness of Rhodium-Coated NiTi Orthodontic Wires: A Clinical Trial. Front. Dent. 2023, 20, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ogawa, C.M.; Faltin, K., Jr.; Maeda, F.A.; Ortolani, C.L.F.; Guaré, R.O.; Cardoso, C.A.B.; Costa, A.L.F. In vivo assessment of the corrosion of nickel-titanium orthodontic archwires by using scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy. Microsc. Res. Technol. 2020, 83, 928–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Fateh-Zonouzi, M.; Kamel, R.M.; Sheikhzadeh, S.; Arash, V.; Khafri, S. The Effect of Different Methods of Fluoride Administration at Different Concentrations on the Load-Deflection Properties of Rhodium-Coated NiTi Archwires. J. Babol Univ. Med. Sci. 2022, 24, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  25. Chitra, P.; Prashantha, G.S.; Rao, A. Long-term evaluation of metal ion release in orthodontic patients using fluoridated oral hygiene agents: An in vivo study. J. World Fed. Orthod. 2019, 8, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chitra, P.; Prashantha, G.S.; Rao, A. Effect of fluoride agents on surface characteristics of NiTi wires: An ex vivo investigation. J. Oral Biol. Craniofac. Res. 2020, 10, 435–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rajendran, A.; Sundareswaran, S.; Peediyekkal, L.V.; Santhakumar, P.; Sathyanadhan, S. Effect of oral environment and prescribed fluoride mouthwashes on different types of TMA wires—An in-vivo study. J. Orthod. Sci. 2019, 8, 8. [Google Scholar]
  28. Graber, T.M.; Eliades, T.; Athanasiou, A.E. Risk Management in Orthodontics: Experts’ Guide to Malpractice; Quintessence Publishing Co.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  29. Al Makhmari, S.A.; Kaklamanos, E.G.; Athanasiou, A.E. Short-term and long-term effectiveness of powered toothbrushes in promoting periodontal health during orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2017, 152, 753–766.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mariotti, A.J.; Burrell, K.H. Mouthrinses and Dentifrices, 5th ed.; American Dental Association and Physician’s Desk Reference, Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  31. Morell, P.; Hernando, I.; Fiszman, S.M. Understanding the relevance of in-mouth food processing: A review of in vitro techniques. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 35, 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Featherstone, J.D.B.; Ten Cate, J.M. Physicochemical aspects of fluoride-enamel interactions. In Fluoride in Dentistry; Ekstrand, J., Fejerskov, O., Silverstone, L.M., Eds.; 1996; pp. 125–149. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sufarnap, E.; Harahap, K.I.; Adiana, I.D.; Lim, D.; Lim, C.; Christy, C. Corrosion of copper nickel titanium archwire in chlorhexidine, sodium fluoride, and chitosan mouthwashes. F1000Research 2024, 12, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sukumar, B.; Raghu Ram, R.; Sunil, G.; Ranganayakulu, I.; Anand Viswanadh, K. Effect of Sodium Fluoride Mouthwash and Ozone-Infused Oil Pulling Solution With Coconut Oil on Mechanical Properties and Surface Characterization of Copper-Nickel-Titanium Orthodontic Archwires. Cureus 2023, 15, e40207. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pastor, F.; Rodriguez, J.C.; Barrera, J.M.; García-Menocal, J.A.D.; Brizuela, A.; Puigdollers, A.; Espinar, E.; Gil, J. Effect of fluoride content of mouthwashes on the metallic ion release in different orthodontic archwires. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Huang, H.H. Variation in surface topography of different NiTi orthodontic archwires in various commercial fluoride-containing environments. Dent. Mater. 2007, 23, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Zibar Belasic, T.; Pejova, B.; Curkovic, H.O.; Kamenar, E.; Cetenovic, B.; Spalj, S. Influence of intraoral application of antiseptics and fluorides during orthodontic treatment on corrosion and mechanical characteristics of nickel-titanium alloy in orthodontic appliances. Angle Orthod. 2021, 91, 528–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Mystkowska, J.; Niemirowicz-Laskowska, K.; Bucki, R.; Łysik, D.; Tokajuk, G.; Dąbrowski, J. The role of oral cavity biofilm on metallic biomaterial surface destruction—Corrosion and friction aspects. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ewers, G.J.; Greener, E.H. The electrochemical activity of the oral cavity—A new approach. J. Oral Rehabil. 1985, 12, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wasim, M.; Inamuddin, I.; Asiri, A.M.; Shoaib, S.; Mubarak, N.M. Factors influencing corrosion of metal pipes in soils. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2018, 16, 861–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lucchetti, M.C.; Fratto, G.; Valeriani, F.; De Vittori, E.; Giampaoli, S.; Papetti, P.; Romano Spica, V.; Manzon, L. Cobalt-chromium alloys in dentistry: An evaluation of metal ion release. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2015, 114, 602–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cacciafesta, V.; Sfondrini, M.F.; Stifanelli, P.; Scribante, A.; Klersy, C. Effect of chlorhexidine application on shear bond strength of brackets bonded with a resin-modified glass ionomer. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2006, 129, 273–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Damon, P.L.; Bishara, S.E.; Olsen, M.E.; Jakobsen, J.R. Bond strength following the application of chlorhexidine on etched enamel. Angle Orthod. 1997, 67, 169–172. [Google Scholar]
  45. Walker, M.P.; Ries, D.; Kula, K.; Ellis, M.; Fricke, B. Mechanical properties and surface characterization of beta titanium and stainless steel orthodontic wire following topical fluoride treatment. Angle Orthod. 2007, 77, 342–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Katić, V.; Mandić, V.; Ježek, D.; Baršić, G.; Špalj, S. Influence of various fluoride agents on working properties and surface characteristics of uncoated, rhodium-coated, and nitrified nickel-titanium orthodontic wires. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2015, 73, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Schiff, N.; Dalard, F.; Lissac, M.; Morgon, L.; Grosgogeat, B. Corrosion resistance of three orthodontic brackets: A comparative study of three fluoride mouthwashes. Eur. J. Orthod. 2005, 27, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Danaei, S.M.; Safavi, A.; Roeinpeikar, S.M.M.; Oshagh, M.; Iranpour, S.; Omidekhoda, M. Ion release from orthodontic brackets in 3 mouthwashes: An in-vitro study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2011, 139, 730–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nik, T.H.; Ghadirian, H.; Hooshmand, T.; Kharazifard, M.J.; Nasiri, M.; Mahd, M.J. Effect of 0.05% Sodium Fluoride Mouthwash on Surface Roughness and Friction between Ceramic Brackets and Rhodium-Coated and Uncoated Stainless Steel Wires. Front. Dent. 2019, 16, 121–129. [Google Scholar]
  50. Geramy, A.; Hooshmand, T.; Etezadi, T. Effect of Sodium Fluoride Mouthwash on the Frictional Resistance of Orthodontic Wires. J. Dent. 2017, 14, 254–258. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rincic Mlinaric, M.; Karlovic, S.; Ciganj, Z.; Acev, D.P.; Pavlic, A.; Spalj, S. Oral antiseptics and nickel-titanium alloys: Mechanical and chemical effects of interaction. Odontology 2019, 107, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schmalz, G.; Garhammer, P. Biological interactions of dental cast alloys with oral tissues. Dent. Mater. 2002, 18, 396–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bodén, K.; Schenker, M.; Lidén, C. Oral cytotoxicity of orthodontic metallic materials: An experimental study. Eur. J. Orthod. 2016, 38, 400–406. [Google Scholar]
  54. Singh, N.; Sharma, S.; Saimbi, C.S. Allergic reactions to nickel in orthodontics: Implications and management. J. Clin. Orthod. 2021, 55, 153–158. [Google Scholar]
  55. Schiff, N.; Boinet, M.; Morgon, L.; Lissac, M.; Dalard, F.; Grosgogeat, B. Galvanic corrosion between orthodontic wires and brackets in fluoride mouthwashes. Eur. J. Orthod. 2006, 28, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Schiff, N.; Grosgogeat, B.; Lissac, M.; Dalard, F. Influence of fluoridated mouthwashes on corrosion resistance of orthodontic wires. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 4535–4542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kao, C.T.; Ding, S.J.; Wang, C.K.; He, H.; Chou, M.Y.; Huang, T.H. Comparison of frictional resistance after immersion of metal brackets and orthodontic wires in a fluoride-containing prophylactic agent. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2006, 130, 568.e1–568.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Costa, M.T.; Lenza, M.A.; Gosch, C.S.; Costa, I.; Ribeiro-Dias, F. In vitro evaluation of corrosion and cytotoxicity of orthodontic brackets. J. Dent. Res. 2007, 86, 441–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Eliades, T.; Brantley, W. (Eds.) Orthodontic Applications of Biomaterials: A Clinical Guide; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 97–104. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hammad, S.M.; Al-Wakeel, E.E.; Gad, E.-S. Mechanical properties and surface characterization of translucent composite wirefollowing topical fluoride treatment. Angle Orthod. 2012, 82, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Srivastava, K.; Chandra, P.K.; Kamat, N. Effect of fluoride mouth rinses on various orthodontic archwire alloys tested by modified bending test: An in vitro study. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2012, 23, 433–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rossouw, E.P. Friction: An overview. Semin Orthod. 2003, 9, 218–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jansen, W.; Oliveira, D. The role of friction in orthodontics. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2012, 17, 170–177. [Google Scholar]
  64. Vishwanathaiah, S.; Maganur, P.C.; Syed, A.A.; Kakti, A.; Hussain Jaafari, A.H.; Albar, D.H.; Renugalakshmi, A.; Jeevanandan, G.; Khurshid, Z.; Ali Baeshen, H.; et al. Effectiveness of Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) in Arresting Coronal Dental Caries in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2024, 48, 27–40. [Google Scholar]
  65. Cacciafesta, V.; Sfondrini, M.F.; Calvi, D.; Scribante, A. Effect of Fluoride Application on Shear Bond Strength of Brackets Bonded with a Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2005, 127, 580–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Inquimbert, C.; Bourgeois, D.; Bravo, M.; Viennot, S.; Dussart, C.; Carrouel, F. The Oral Bacterial Microbiome of Interdental Surfaces in Adolescents According to Carious Risk. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hygiene 05 00023 g001
Figure 1. Flow of records through the reviewing process.
Figure 1. Flow of records through the reviewing process.
Hygiene 05 00023 g001
Hygiene 05 00023 g002
Figure 2. Risk of bias assessment for randomized studies with ROB2 [21,22,23,24].
Figure 2. Risk of bias assessment for randomized studies with ROB2 [21,22,23,24].
Hygiene 05 00023 g002
Hygiene 05 00023 g003
Figure 3. Risk of bias assessment for non-randomized studies with ROBINS-I tool [25,26,27].
Figure 3. Risk of bias assessment for non-randomized studies with ROBINS-I tool [25,26,27].
Hygiene 05 00023 g003
Table 1. Characteristics and results of the studies included in the review.
Table 1. Characteristics and results of the studies included in the review.
StudyParticipant & Intervention CharacteristicsStudy Methods & Outcomes
Farrag et al. [21]
2024—RCT		30; Age: 18–30 y; Study duration: 1 m
CG: 10; F toothpaste [3/d]
TG: 10; as in CG plus 0.2% NaF [proprietary formulation; 10 mL; 2/d] 		NiTi archwires [0.016″ × 0.022″; American Orthodontics (Sheboygan, WI, USA)]
Roughness: Ra: NaF > control [SS] [SEM]
Khanloghi et al. [22]
2023—RCT		10; Age: 15–20 y; Study duration: 6 w
CG: 5; F− toothpaste
TG: 5; as in CG plus & 0.05% F [Oral B daily; 15 mL; 1/d]		NiTi archwires–rhodium-coated [0.016″; GAC International]
Roughness: Sa, Sq, Sdq increased in NAF [SS]; Sdr & Sz [ND] [AFM]
Ogawa et al. [23]
2020—RCT		10 recruited [5 analyzed in a cross-over trial]; Age: 18–25 y; Study duration: 30 d for each phase [with 10 d washout period between]
PG: 5; F toothpaste [3/d] and placebo
TG1: 5; as in CG but NaF 1.1% pH 7 [proprietary formulation; 10 mL; 1/d]
TG2: 5; as in CG but APF 1.1% pH 5.1 [proprietary formulation; 10 mL; 1/d]		NiTi archwires [0.016″ Nitinol, 3 M Unitek & NiTi Memory Wire, American Orthodontics]
Roughness: RA and RMS increased in APF treated Nitinol wires [SS]; AO wires [ND] [SEM]
Roughness [qualitative assessment]: PG < NaF < APF [AFM]
Fateh-Zonouzi et al. [24]
2022—RCT		20; Age: 15–25 y; Study duration: 6 w
CG: 10; F toothpaste [2/d]
TG: 10; as in CG plus 0.2% NaF [Oral B; 15 mL; 30 s; 1/d]		NiTi archwires–rhodium-coated [0.016″; GAC International]
Mean yield strength: NaF > control [SS]
Stiffness: [ND]; Unloading force: [ND]
Chitra et al. [25]
2019—CCT		60; Age: N/A; Study duration: 6 m
CG: 30; non-F toothpaste
TG: 30; F toothpaste & 225 ppm F−mouthwash (Colgate Plax, 225 ppm fluoride; Colgate Palmolive Co. (New York City, NY, USA)) [2/d]		S. Steel brackets [Mini Twin; Ormco, Glendora, CA, USA] & NiTi archwires [[0.014″ NiTi, 0.016″ NiTi, 0.016″ × 0.022″ NiTi Tru-Arch Align NiTi; Ormco]
Ion release in CGF
Ni (1 m): [SS];
Ni (1 w, 6 m), Cr (1 w, 1 m, 6 m), Mn (1 w, 1 m, 6 m), Ti (1 w, 1 m, 6 m): [ND]
Chitra et al. [26]
2020—CCT		60; Age: N/A; Study duration: 6 m
CG: 30; non-F toothpaste
TG: 30; F toothpaste & 225 ppm F mouthwash (Colgate Plax, 225 ppm fluoride, Colgate Palmolive Co., Mumbai, India) [2/d]		S. Steel brackets [Teeth #11 & #15; Ormco Corporation, Glendora, CA, USA] & NiTi archwires [0.014″ NiTi, 0.016″ NiTi, 0.016″ × 0.022″ NiTi Tru-Arch Align NiTi; Ormco]
Surface characteristics [qualitative assessment]: surface degradation [F] > CG
Metal ion release: Ni percentage [F] < CG for all wires
Rajendran et al. [27]
2019—CCT		96; Age: N/A; Study duration: 4 w
CG: 16 [for each type of TMA wire]; non-F− toothpaste
TG: 16 [for each type of TMA wire]; 904 ppm F− & 3% KNO3 mouthwash (SENQUEL-AD
mouthwash, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratory (Hyderabad, India)) [10 mL; 3 min; 3/d]		TMA wires [0.017″ × 0.025″: 1. Standard TMA (TMA); GAC, Bohemia, NY, USA; 2. Ion-implanted, low-friction TMA (LF); Ormco, Glendora, CA, USA, and 3. Colored, Honey Dew TMA (HD)]
Roughness: Sa, Sz: [904 ppm F] > CG in all 3 wires;
Load-deflection rate: [904 ppm F] > CG in LF and HD.
Ultimate Tensile strength: [904 ppm F] > CG in all 3 wires.
Modulus of elasticity: [904 ppm F] > CG in all 3 wires
AFM: atomic force microscopy; CCT: controlled clinical trial; CG: control group; d: day; EDS: energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy;; m: month(s); min: minute(s); ND: no difference; NaF: sodium fluoride; NiTi: nickel–titanium; RCT: randomized controlled trial; S. Steel: stainless steel; s: seconds; SEM: scanning electron microscopy; SS: statistically significant; TG: test group; w: week(s).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Makrygiannakis, M.A.; Gkinosati, A.A.; Kalfas, S.; Kaklamanos, E.G. The Effect of Fluoride Mouthwashes on Orthodontic Appliances’ Corrosion and Mechanical Properties: A Scoping Review. Hygiene 2025, 5, 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/hygiene5020023

AMA Style

Makrygiannakis MA, Gkinosati AA, Kalfas S, Kaklamanos EG. The Effect of Fluoride Mouthwashes on Orthodontic Appliances’ Corrosion and Mechanical Properties: A Scoping Review. Hygiene. 2025; 5(2):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/hygiene5020023

Chicago/Turabian Style

Makrygiannakis, Miltiadis A., Angeliki Anna Gkinosati, Sotirios Kalfas, and Eleftherios G. Kaklamanos. 2025. "The Effect of Fluoride Mouthwashes on Orthodontic Appliances’ Corrosion and Mechanical Properties: A Scoping Review" Hygiene 5, no. 2: 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/hygiene5020023

APA Style

Makrygiannakis, M. A., Gkinosati, A. A., Kalfas, S., & Kaklamanos, E. G. (2025). The Effect of Fluoride Mouthwashes on Orthodontic Appliances’ Corrosion and Mechanical Properties: A Scoping Review. Hygiene, 5(2), 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/hygiene5020023

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop