The effect of the polishing procedure and surface sealant application on the fluoride release of different restorative materials

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.

Download Full-text

Effect of surface sealant on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composites

Polymers and Polymer Composites ◽

10.1177/09673911211005586 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 096739112110055

Author(s):

Gunce Ozan ◽

Meltem Mert Eren ◽

Cansu Vatansever ◽

Ugur Erdemir

Keyword(s):

Surface Roughness ◽

Bacterial Adhesion ◽

Confocal Laser ◽

High Caries Risk ◽

Two Samples ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Restorative Materials ◽

Surface Sealants ◽

Surface Sealant ◽

Effect Of Surface

Surface sealants are reported to ensure surface smoothness and improve the surface quality of composite restorations. These sealants should also reduce the bacterial adhesion on composite surfaces however, there is not much information regarding their performance on bulk-fill composite materials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface sealant application on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of various restorative materials. Disc-shaped samples were prepared from a compomer, a conventional composite and three bulk-fill composites. Specimens of each group were divided into two groups (n = 9): with/without surface sealant (Biscover LV, [BLV]). Surface roughness values were examined by profilometry and two samples of each group were examined for bacterial adhesion on a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Bacterial counts were calculated by both broth cultivation and microscopic images. Results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni/Dunn tests. Following the BLV application, there was a decrease in the surface roughness values of all groups however, only Tetric N-Ceram Bulk and Beautifil-Bulk groups showed significantly smoother surfaces (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences among material groups without BLV application. Evaluating bacterial adhesion after BLV application, conventional composite had the lowest values among all followed by the compomer group. Beautifil-Bulk had significantly the highest bacterial adhesion (p < 0.05), followed by Tetric N-Ceram Bulk group. Without BLV application, there was no significant difference among bacterial adhesion values of groups (p > 0.05). CLSM images showed cell viability in groups. Bulk-fill composites showed higher bacterial adhesion than conventional composite and compomer materials. The surface sealant was found to be highly effective in lowering bacterial adhesion, but not so superior in smoothing the surfaces of restorative materials. So, surface sealants could be used on the restorations of patients with high caries risk.

Download Full-text

Fluoride release for restorative materials and its effect on biofilm formation in natural saliva

Journal of Materials Science Materials in Medicine ◽

10.1007/s10856-006-0023-z ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 19 (3) ◽

pp. 1243-1248 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

Omar T. Al-Naimi ◽

Toshiyuki Itota ◽

Ross S. Hobson ◽

John F. McCabe

Keyword(s):

Biofilm Formation ◽

Fluoride Release ◽

Restorative Materials

Download Full-text

Comparative assessment of fluoride release and recharge through newer fluoride releasing posterior restorative materials: An in vitro study

Journal of Conservative Dentistry ◽

10.4103/jcd.jcd_92_19 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 22 (6) ◽

pp. 544

Author(s):

RAnitha Kumari ◽

Siddharth Rai ◽

N Meena

Keyword(s):

In Vitro Study ◽

Comparative Assessment ◽

Vitro Study ◽

Fluoride Release ◽

Restorative Materials

Download Full-text

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

Biomaterials ◽

10.1016/s0142-9612(00)00253-2 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 22 (12) ◽

pp. 1449-1458 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

F.N Hattab ◽

W.M Amin

Keyword(s):

Surface Coating ◽

Fluoride Release ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Restorative Materials

Download Full-text

A Comparative Evaluation of the Amount of Fluoride Release and Re- Release after Recharging from Aesthetic Restorative Materials: An in Vitro Study

JOURNAL FOR CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH ◽

10.7860/jcdr/2015/11926.6278 ◽

2015 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Ruchika Bansal

Keyword(s):

Comparative Evaluation ◽

In Vitro Study ◽

Vitro Study ◽

Fluoride Release ◽

Restorative Materials

Download Full-text

Microhardness and fluoride release of restorative materials in different storage media

Brazilian Dental Journal ◽

10.1590/s0103-64402007000400007 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 18 (4) ◽

pp. 309-313 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Kélio Garcia Silva ◽

Denise Pedrini ◽

Alberto Carlos Botazzo Delbem ◽

Mark Cannon

Keyword(s):

Static Load ◽

Initial Surface ◽

Fluoride Release ◽

Storage Medium ◽

Surface Microhardness ◽

Storage Media ◽

All Solutions ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Restorative Materials ◽

Ph Cycling

This study evaluated the surface microhardness and fluoride release of 5 restorative materials - Ketac-Fil Plus, Vitremer, Fuji II LC, Freedom and Fluorofil - in two storage media: distilled/deionized water and a pH-cycling (pH 4.6). Twelve specimens of each material, were fabricated and the initial surface microhardness (ISM) was determined in a Shimadzu HMV-2000 microhardness tester (static load Knoop). The specimens were submitted to 6- or 18-h cycles in the tested media. The solutions were refreshed at the end of each cycle. All solutions were stored for further analysis. After 15-day storage, the final surface microhardness (FSM) and fluoride release were measured. Fluoride dose was measured with a fluoride-specific electrode (Orion 9609-BN) and digital ion analyzer (Orion 720 A). The variables ISM, FSM and fluoride release were analyzed statistically by analysis of variance and Tukey's test (p<0.05). There was significant difference in FSM between the storage media for Vitremer (pH 4.6 = 40.2 ± 1.5; water = 42.6 ± 1.4), Ketac-Fil Plus (pH 4.6 = 73.4 ± 2.7; water = 58.2 ± 1.3) and Fluorofil (pH 4.6 = 44.3 ± 1.8; water = 38.4 ± 1.0). Ketac-Fil Plus (9.9 ± 18.0) and Fluorofil (4.4 ± 1.3) presented higher fluoride release in water, whereas Vitremer (7.4 ± 7.1), Fuji II LC (5.7 ± 4.7) and Freedom (2.1 ± 1.7) had higher fluoride release at pH 4.6. Microhardness and fluoride release of the tested restorative materials varied according to the storage medium.

Download Full-text