STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: In addition to conventional glass ionomers, a considerable number of different types of materials have been formulated to release fluoride. Variation in composition results in quantitative differences in the amount of fluoride release by these materials. PURPOSE: This study evaluated and compared fluoride release in distilled water from different types of restorative materials and a luting cement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fluoride release from 4 glass ionomer formulation restorative materials (Miracle-Mix, Fuji ionomer type III, Fuji II LC improved, and Ketac-Silver), a luting cement (Ketac Cem), a compomer (Compoglass Flow), 2 sealants (Fissurit F, Helioseal F), and a composite resin (Tetric) was evaluated at time intervals of 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours and 2, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, and 112 days. Seven disks of each material were made and stored for equilibration in double distilled water at 37 degrees C for the time of each measurement. The equilibrated solution was analyzed for fluoride with a TISAB and an ion-specific combination electrode (ORION 960900) connected to an expandable ion analyzer (Crison micropH 2002). Data were analyzed by means of univariate analysis of variance, the Dunnett C post hoc test, and repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: Fluoride was released from all the evaluated materials, with considerable variation in the rate of release but a similar pattern. Among the materials tested, fluoride release from glass ionomer formulations was greater than that from composite resin formulations; the rank of decreasing order was as follows: Miracle Mix > Fuji III, Ketac Cem > Fuji II LC > Ketac Silver, Compoglass F > Fissurit F, Helioseal F > Tetric (> indicates statistical significance; P< .05). CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of this study, glass ionomer formulations and the compomer released more fluoride than the sealants and the composite resin tested.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: In addition to conventional glass ionomers, a considerable number of different types of materials have been formulated to release fluoride. Variation in composition results in quantitative differences in the amount of fluoride release by these materials. PURPOSE: This study evaluated and compared fluoride release in distilled water from different types of restorative materials and a luting cement. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Fluoride release from 4 glass ionomer formulation restorative materials (Miracle-Mix, Fuji ionomer type III, Fuji II LC improved, and Ketac-Silver), a luting cement (Ketac Cem), a compomer (Compoglass Flow), 2 sealants (Fissurit F, Helioseal F), and a composite resin (Tetric) was evaluated at time intervals of 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours and 2, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, and 112 days. Seven disks of each material were made and stored for equilibration in double distilled water at 37 degrees C for the time of each measurement. The equilibrated solution was analyzed for fluoride with a TISAB and an ion-specific combination electrode (ORION 960900) connected to an expandable ion analyzer (Crison micropH 2002). Data were analyzed by means of univariate analysis of variance, the Dunnett C post hoc test, and repeated measures analysis. RESULTS:Fluoride was released from all the evaluated materials, with considerable variation in the rate of release but a similar pattern. Among the materials tested, fluoride release from glass ionomer formulations was greater than that from composite resin formulations; the rank of decreasing order was as follows: Miracle Mix > Fuji III, Ketac Cem > Fuji II LC > Ketac Silver, Compoglass F > Fissurit F, Helioseal F > Tetric (> indicates statistical significance; P< .05). CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of this study, glass ionomer formulations and the compomer released more fluoride than the sealants and the composite resin tested.