OBJECTIVES: To compare the in-vitro Weekly Cumulative Fluoride Release (WCFR) of three Glass Ionomer Cements (GICs) used for orthodontic banding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The GICs tested were Granitec (Confi-Dental, Louisville, CO, USA), Bandtite (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI, USA) and Ariadent (Apadana Tak Co, Tehran, Iran). Fifteen discs of each GIC were constructed (6mm diameter and 1.5mm depth). Specimens were immersed in 5 ml of deionised water and the WCFR was measured at weekly intervals, on days 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29 after immersion in deonised water, using the potentiometery device and single junction saturated calomel electrode technique (Jenway, England, UK). To compare the WCFR profile of 3 GICS, data were subjected to the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and were appropriate, the Scheffe or Tamhane multiple comparison tests (post-hoc). For assessing the longitudinal changes of average WCFRs in 3 GICs, the repeated measures ANOVA were used. Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction was also used to compare the average WCFRs at different time-points. RESULTS: One-way ANOVA and post-hoc multiple comparison tests revealed significant differences in WCFR among 3 GICs at five time-points (p<0.05). The post-hoc multiple comparison test revealed Bandtite cement had consistently higher WCFR at all time-points, compared to Granitec and Ariadent cements (p<0.05). The one-way ANOVA test revealed significant differences in WCFR at different time-points for all GIC groups (p<0.05). The day 8 exhibited the highest WCFR for all GICs. The repeated measures ANOVA test revealed significant differences in WCFR at different time-points for all GIC groups (p<0.0005). Reviewing average WCFR on days 22 and 29, these values for Granitec, Bandtite and Ariadent GICs, were higher (p<0.05), not different (p>0.05), and significantly lower (p<0.05) than the day 1 values, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bandtite followed by Granitec showed higher WCFR compared to Ariadent.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the in-vitro Weekly Cumulative Fluoride Release (WCFR) of three Glass Ionomer Cements (GICs) used for orthodontic banding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The GICs tested were Granitec (Confi-Dental, Louisville, CO, USA), Bandtite (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI, USA) and Ariadent (Apadana Tak Co, Tehran, Iran). Fifteen discs of each GIC were constructed (6mm diameter and 1.5mm depth). Specimens were immersed in 5 ml of deionised water and the WCFR was measured at weekly intervals, on days 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29 after immersion in deonised water, using the potentiometery device and single junction saturated calomel electrode technique (Jenway, England, UK). To compare the WCFR profile of 3 GICS, data were subjected to the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and were appropriate, the Scheffe or Tamhane multiple comparison tests (post-hoc). For assessing the longitudinal changes of average WCFRs in 3 GICs, the repeated measures ANOVA were used. Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction was also used to compare the average WCFRs at different time-points. RESULTS: One-way ANOVA and post-hoc multiple comparison tests revealed significant differences in WCFR among 3 GICs at five time-points (p<0.05). The post-hoc multiple comparison test revealed Bandtite cement had consistently higher WCFR at all time-points, compared to Granitec and Ariadent cements (p<0.05). The one-way ANOVA test revealed significant differences in WCFR at different time-points for all GIC groups (p<0.05). The day 8 exhibited the highest WCFR for all GICs. The repeated measures ANOVA test revealed significant differences in WCFR at different time-points for all GIC groups (p<0.0005). Reviewing average WCFR on days 22 and 29, these values for Granitec, Bandtite and Ariadent GICs, were higher (p<0.05), not different (p>0.05), and significantly lower (p<0.05) than the day 1 values, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bandtite followed by Granitec showed higher WCFR compared to Ariadent.