scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride Release and Recharge of Zirconia-reinforced, Resin-modified, and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cements

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 469-473
Author(s):  
Anulekh Babu ◽  
Shiji Dinakaran ◽  
Anupama S Gopinath ◽  
Varun Kumar ◽  
Soumya L Surabhilakshan ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lígia S. Bueno ◽  
Rafael M. Silva ◽  
Ana Paula R. Magalhães ◽  
Maria Fidela L. Navarro ◽  
Renata C. Pascotto ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. e197-e203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Dionysopoulos ◽  
Kosmas Tolidis ◽  
Paris Gerasimou ◽  
Thrasyvoulos Sfeikos

1988 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.C. Smith

The manifold uses of dental cements-as (a) luting agents, (b) cavity linings and bases, and (c) restorations for teeth—make them perhaps the most important materials in clinical dentistry. The research of the last 10 years has resulted in four main types, classified by matrix-forming species: (1) phosphate, (2) phenolate, (3) polycarboxylate, and (4) polymethacrylate. The zinc phosphate cements continue to be widely used for luting in an essentially unchanged form. Acidity and oral dissolution remain as problems. The zinc-oxide eugenol cements and their modifications are useful as linings and temporary materials but are susceptible to hydrolytic breakdown. Vanillate cements may be an improvement. Calcium hydroxide-salicylate cements are widely used as cavity linings, especially on exposures, and show improved resistance to acid dissolution. Polycarboxylate cements as both zinc polycarboxylate and glass-ionomer cements show adhesion potential, good physical properties, fluoride release, and, generally, good biological properties. Glass-ionomer cements when correctly manipulated show minimal oral dissolution. Polymethacrylate cements have been used principally for bonding etched cast metal restorations to etched enamel. Recently, adhesive crown-and-bridge cements have been developed. There are no well-established correlations between laboratory measurements of apparently relevant properties and clinical performance. More clinically-based research is needed to facilitate the development of new cements.


2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Wang ◽  
Marília Afonso Rabelo Buzalaf ◽  
Maria Teresa Atta

A dhesive systems associated to resin-modified glass ionomer cements are employed for the achievement of a higher bond strength to dentin. Despite this benefit, other properties should not be damaged. This study aimed at evaluating the short-time fluoride release of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement coated with two one-bottle adhesive systems in a pH cycling system. Four combinations were investigated: G1: Vitremer (V); G2: Vitremer + Primer (VP); G3: Vitremer + Single Bond (VSB) and G4: Vitremer + Prime & Bond 2.1 (VPB). SB is a fluoride-free and PB is a fluoride-containing system. After preparation of the Vitremer specimens, two coats of the selected adhesive system were carefully applied and light-cured. Specimens were immersed in demineralizing solution for 6 hours followed by immersion in remineralizing solution for 18 hours, totalizing the 15-day cycle. All groups released fluoride in a similar pattern, with a greater release in the beginning and decreasing with time. VP showed the greatest fluoride release, followed by V, with no statistical difference. VSB and VPB released less fluoride compared to V and VP, with statistical difference. Regardless the one-bottle adhesive system, application of coating decreased the fluoride release from the resin-modified glass ionomer cements. This suggests that this combination would reduce the beneficial effect of the restorative material to the walls around the restoration.


2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaheh Vahid-Dastjerdi ◽  
Ali Borzabadi-Farahani ◽  
Homa Pourmofidi-Neistanak ◽  
Nazila Amini

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document