Fluoride release from glass ionomer restorative materials and the effects of surface coating

Biomaterials ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 1449-1458 ◽  
Author(s):  
F.N Hattab ◽  
W.M Amin
Keyword(s):  
Surface Coating ◽  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials

scholarly journals Compressive Strength, Fluoride Release and Recharge of Giomer

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
SM Abdul Quader ◽  
M Shamsul Alam ◽  
AKM Bashar ◽  
Abdul Gafur ◽  
MA Al Mansur
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
High Fluoride ◽  
Glass Filler

Current restorative materials with high fluoride release generally have lower mechanical properties. Therefore they may not be as durable clinically as lower fluoride release materials, particularly in load bearing areas. The aim of the present study is to explore the fluoride release and recharging ability as well as its compressive strength of the newly developed material called Giomer. The name Giomer is a hybrid of the words Glass Ionomer and Composite. Giomer contain a revolutionary PRG (Pre Reacted Glass) filler technology. They have properties of both conventional Glass Ionomer (fluoride release and recharge) and resin Composite (excellent esthetics, easy polishability and biocompatibility). MATERIALS & METHODS: Seven disk specimens of Giomer, Compomer and Glass Ionomer restorative materials were prepared for measurement of fluoride release and recharge using Ion Chromatography (IC) anion analyzer machine. Another seven disk specimens of Giomer, Compomer and Composite restorative materials were prepared for measurement of compressive strength using Universal Testing Machine (UTM). RESULTS: The value of compressive strength of Giomer is greater than that of Composite and Compomer but the fluoride release capability of Giomer becomes low in comparison to Glass Ionomer but not significant in comparison to compomer. CONCLUSIONS: Giomer have high compressive strength (271 Mpa) and an initial fluoride (1.41 ppm) release. It also exhibit fluoride recharge capabilities. So, Giomer to be a better restorative material other than any fluoride releasing materials. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/updcj.v2i2.15533 Update Dent. Coll. j: 2012; 2 (2): 28-37

scholarly journals Fluoride release from conventional, resin-modified and hybrid glass ionomer cements

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 187-194
Author(s):  
Maja Ležaja Zebić ◽  
Nikola Jakovljević ◽  
Vesna Miletić
Keyword(s):  
Correlation Analysis ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Fluoride Concentration ◽  
Base Material ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Summary Introduction The aim of the study was to quantify and compare fluoride release from four different glass ionomer cement products (GICs). Materials and Methods Standardized disk-shaped samples (5x2mm; n=5/group) of GIC restorative materials: conventional (Fuji IX, GC Corp., Japan), resin-modified (Fuji II LC, GC) and hybrid glass ionomer cement (Equia Forte, GC) and a conventional GIC liner/base material (Alfagal, Galenika, Serbia) were tested for fluoride release up to 21 days postsetting. Each sample was immersed in 5 mL of fresh deionized water during each time interval. Universal microhybrid composite (Filtek Z250, 3M EPSE, USA) and adhesive (Adper Single Bond, 3M ESPE) were used as negative controls. Fluoride release was measured using an F-selective electrode (Cole-Parmer, USA) and an ion meter (Oakton 700, Cole-Parmer, USA). Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA, regression and correlation analysis at 0.05. Results The highest total fluoride release was measured from Alfagal (386±61 ppm/g), and significantly less from Equia (188±29 ppm/g), Fuji IX (143±11 ppm/g) and Fuji II LC (104±14 ppm/g) (p < 0.05). All GICs showed the highest fluoride release during the first 24 hours post-setting. After 3 days, fluoride release slowed down reaching a plateau for all materials. Regression and Pearson correlation analysis showed significant inverse relationship between fluoride release and sample mass and density (p<0.001). Conclusion Of the three GICs indicated for use as restorative materials, Equia Forte released the highest fluoride concentration. Fluoride release was material and density dependent, with higher release occurring from lower density GICs.

scholarly journals Effect of the polishing procedure and surface sealant application on fluoride release

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhittin Ugurlu
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Energy Dispersive ◽  
Fluoride Glass ◽  
Repeated Measure ◽  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Surface Sealant ◽  
Fluoride Ion Selective Electrode

Objective: This study aimed to assess the effect of the polishing procedure and surface sealant application on the fluoride release of restorative materials. Material and Methods: The groups were consisted of using five different restorative materials were employed: Beautifil II, GCP Glass Fill, Amalgomer CR, Zirconomer and Fuji IX GP. 30 disk-shaped specimens (8x2 mm) were prepared from each material. Each group was subdivided into three groups considering finishing procedures: Mylar strip, polishing with Super-Snap discs, G-Coat Plus application after polishing with Super-Snap discs. The amount of fluoride released into distilled water was measured using a fluoride ion-selective electrode and ion analyzer after 24 hours, followed by measurement on days 3, 7, 15, 21, and 28.  Surface analysis of the materials was performed with SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) and EDS (Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy). The data were statistically analyzed using two-way repeated measure ANOVA and LSD test (p=0.05). Results: The highest amount of fluoride released was measured after the first 24 h for all materials. Beautifil II released less fluoride than other materials in all measurement periods (p<0.05). After polishing, the amount of fluoride released from all materials except Beautifil II increased (p<0.05). The application of G-Coat Plus did not impact the amount of fluoride release of any materials (p>0.05). EDS analysis showed the most percentage of oxygen in all materials. Conclusion: The polishing procedure might induce an increase in fluoride release of glass ionomer-based materials, and the application of G-Coat Plus cannot affect the amount of fluoride release.   Keywords Energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy; Fluoride; Glass ionomer cement.

scholarly journals Effect of Polishing Systems on Fluoride Release and Surface Roughness of Different Restorative Materials

2019 ◽  
pp. 227-238
Author(s):  
Soner Şişmanoğlu DDS, PhD ◽  
Burak Gümüştaş DDS, PhD ◽  
Zuhal Yıldırım-Bilmez DDS, PhD
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Repeated Measure ◽  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Polishing Process ◽  
Selective Electrode ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Clinical Benefits ◽  
Fluoride Ion Selective Electrode ◽  
One Way Anova

Secondary caries is an important factor in the replacement of the restorations, and it is thought that fluoride-releasing materials may prevent this problem. Furthermore, the fluoride release of the materials may be increased by polishing process. Available knowledge about the effect of polishing systems (PS) on the fluoride release of materials is limited. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the effect of PS on the fluoride release of fluoride-containing materials. Restorative materials were divided into 6 groups: Fuji IX GP, Fuji II, Dyract XP, Beautifil II, Beautifil-Bulk, and Filtek Ultimate. Each group was also divided into four subgroups: Mylar strip, Sof-Lex Discs, Sof-Lex Diamond, and OneGloss. Fluoride release was determined using a fluoride ion-selective electrode. Surface roughness was evaluated with a profilometer. Two-way repeated measure and one-way ANOVA tests were used for statistical analysis. The initial rapid fluoride release was observed only in Fuji IX. The PS increased the fluoride release of Fuji IX and Fuji II and Dyract XP materials while reducing the fluoride release of resin-based materials. The highest surface roughness values were obtained with OneGloss. Further, a significant relationship between fluoride release and surface roughness was found. The polishing provides an increase in fluoride release, especially in glass-ionomer-based materials. This article revealed that there is a relationship between fluoride release and surface roughness. Proper PS must be chosen according to the material to provide the best clinical benefits in terms of fluoride release and surface roughness.

scholarly journals Fluoride Release and Recharge Properties of Several Fluoride-Containing Restorative Materials

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-204
Author(s):  
Dongyun Lee ◽  
Jongsoo Kim ◽  
Miran Han ◽  
Jisun Shin
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Clinical Conditions

The aim of the study is to compare the fluoride release and recharge properties of glass ionomer cements and ‘alkasite’.<br/>Specimens of two glass ionomer cements (Fuji Ⅸ GP and Riva Self Cure), ‘alkasite’ restorative material (Cention N) and composite resin (Filtek<sup>TM</sup> Z350XT) were prepared. The fluoride release of each specimen was measured for 28 days. Thereafter, 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) gel was applied to experimental groups. No treatment was performed on control groups. The fluoride release was measured for additional 7 days to evaluate the fluoride recharge properties of each materials.<br/>The fluoride release was highest in Riva Self Cure, followed by Fuji Ⅸ GP, Cention N (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Fluoride release of Cention N was measured to be approximately 49% of Fuji Ⅸ GP’s. After the application of 1.23% APF gel, increases in fluoride release were observed in Riva Self Cure, Fuji Ⅸ GP and Cention N (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Fluoride recharge was observed in Cention N as well as in glass ionomer cements. Further studies are required to evaluate the anti-cariogenic properties of Cention N at clinical conditions.

scholarly journals Evaluation of mechanical properties of fluoride-releasing dental materials after multiple fluoride recharge/discharge application

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Burak Gümüştaş ◽  
Elif Yaman Dosdoğru ◽  
Sinan Güneysu
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Properties ◽  
Flexural Strength ◽  
Dental Materials ◽  
Experimental Period ◽  
Strength Properties ◽  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Mechanical And Physical Properties ◽  
Restorative Materials

This study aimed to determine the mechanical properties of fluoride-releasing dental materials after an accelerated fluoride recharge/discharge procedure. Two fluoride-releasing glass ionomer types of cement (Ketac Molar Easymix and IonoStar Molar), a resin-modified glass ionomer (Photac Fil Quick Aplicap), and two compomers (Compoglass F and Glasiosite) were used in this study. A total of 30 rectangular specimens and 30 disk specimens of each material were prepared and placed in distilled/deionized water (n = 5). The amount of fluoride released was analyzed from the materials for 7-day discharge, 1st recharge, 7-day discharge, 2nd recharge, and 7-day discharge, and 3rd recharge. The de/pre- and post-recharge fluoride release were measured using an ion chromatography for 24 days. The flexural strength and microhardness of each group were evaluated. The microhardness of all restorative materials showed no significant change (p > 0.05) over the experimental period. The flexural strength properties of the restorative materials did not change within the time of the study. The study showed that the fluoride release/uptake causes no effect on the mechanical and physical properties of dental materials.  

scholarly journals Fluoride Release from Restorative Materials

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 355-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Romanini Basso ◽  
Álvaro Della Bona ◽  
Delton Luiz Gobbi ◽  
Dileta Cecchetti
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Liquid Membrane ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Negative Control ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro fluoride (F) release from 4 restorative materials (3M ESPE): Ketak Molar Easymix [KME - conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC)]; Rely-X luting 2 [RL2 - resin-modified GIC (RMGIC)]; Vitremer (VIT- RMGIC); and Filtek Z250 [Z250 - negative control]. Disc-shaped specimens were fabricated according to the manufacturer’s instructions and placed into 10 mL of reverse osmosis water at 37°C until the analyses were done using a liquid membrane for selective F ion electrode (Orion 710). F release was evaluated every 6 h in the first day and thereafter daily during 28 days (d). The results were analyzed statistically by two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). Mean F release and standard deviation values (in ppm) were: KME: 6 h- 0.34 ± 0.04; 24 h- 1.22 ± 0.30; 7 d- 0.29 ± 0.09; 14 d- 0.20 ± 0.04; 28 d- 0.16 ± 0.01; RL2: 6 h- 2.46 ± 0.48; 24 h-12.33 ± 2.93; 7 d- 1.37 ± 0.38; 14 d- 0.80 ± 0.13; 28 d- 0.80 ± 0.21; VIT: 6 h- 0.98 ± 0.35; 24 h- 4.35 ± 1.22; 7 d- 0.66 ± 0.23; 14 d- 0.40 ± 0.07; 28 d- 0.39 ± 0.08; Z250: 6 h- 0.029 ± 0.001; 24 h- 0.024 ± 0.009; 7 d- 0.023 ± 0.004; 14 d- 0.025 ± 0.001; 28 d- 0.028 ± 0.001. RL2 RMGIC released more F than the other materials in all periods. The greatest release of F occurred in the first 24 h.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document