Literature DB >> 33635885

Fluoride release from two types of fluoride-containing orthodontic adhesives: Conventional versus resin-modified glass ionomer cements-An in vitro study.

Yasemin Dziuk1, Sachin Chhatwani1, Stephan C Möhlhenrich1, Sabrina Tulka2, Ella A Naumova3, Gholamreza Danesh1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Development of white spot lesions (WSLs) during orthodontic treatment is a common risk factor. Fixation of the orthodontic appliances with glass ionomer cements could reduce the prevalence of WSL's due to their fluoride release capacities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences of fluoride release properties from resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs).
METHODS: The resin-modified GICs Fuji ORTHO LC (GC Orthodontics), Meron Plus QM (VOCO), as well as the conventional GICs Fuji ORTHO (GC Orthodontics), Meron (VOCO) and Ketac Cem Easymix (3M ESPE) were tested in this study. The different types of GICs were applied to hydroxyapatite discs according to the manufacturer's instructions and stored in a solution of TISAB III (Total Ionic Strength Adjustment Buffer III) and fluoride-free water at 37°C. Fluoride measurements were made after 5 minutes, 2 hours, 24 hours, 14 days, 28 days, 2 months, 3 months and 6 months. One factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for the overall comparison of the cumulative fluoride release (from measurement times of 5 minutes to 6 months) between the different materials with the overall level of significance set to 0.05. Tukey's post hoc test was used for post hoc pairwise comparisons in the cumulative fluoride release between the different materials.
RESULTS: The cumulative fluoride release (mean ± sd) in descending order was: Fuji ORTHO LC (221.7 ± 10.29 ppm), Fuji ORTHO (191.5 ± 15.03 ppm), Meron Plus QM (173.0 ± 5.89 ppm), Meron (161.3 ± 7.84 ppm) and Ketac Cem Easymix (154.6 ± 6.09 ppm) within 6 months. Analysis of variance detected a significant difference in the cumulative fluoride release between at least two of the materials (rounded p-value < 0.001). Pairwise analysis with Tukey's post hoc test showed a significant difference in the cumulative fluoride release for all the comparisons except M and MPQM (p = 0.061) and KCE and M (p = 0.517).
CONCLUSION: Fluoride ions were released cumulatively over the entire test period for all products. When comparing the two products from the same company (Fuji ORTHO LC vs. Fuji ORTHO from GC Orthodontics Europe GmbH and Meron Plus QM vs. Meron from VOCO GmbH, Mannheim, Germany), it can be said that the resin-modified GICs have a higher release than conventional GICs. The highest individual fluoride release of all GICs was at 24 hours. A general statement, whether resin-modified or conventional GICs have a higher release of fluoride cannot be made.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33635885      PMCID: PMC7909673          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247716

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  45 in total

1.  What is the optimum fluoride concentration needed for the remineralization process?

Authors:  E Hellwig; A Lussi
Journal:  Caries Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  A continuous flow system for assessing fluoride release/uptake of fluoride-containing restorative materials.

Authors:  Hsiu-Ming Hsu; Guay-Fen Huang; Hsiao-Hua Chang; Yin-Lin Wang; Ming-Kuang Guo
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 5.304

3.  Linear regression modeling to compare fluoride release profiles of various restorative materials.

Authors:  Deniz C Can-Karabulut; Inci Batmaz; Hikmet Solak; Mustafa Taştekin
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2006-12-11       Impact factor: 5.304

4.  Determination of fluoride release from light-cured glass-ionomers and a fluoridated composite resin from the viewpoint of curing time.

Authors:  H Ulukapi; Y Benderli; M Soyman
Journal:  J Oral Rehabil       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 3.837

5.  Inhibitive effect of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement on remote enamel artificial caries.

Authors:  D Tantbirojn; W H Douglas; A Versluis
Journal:  Caries Res       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 6.  A contemporary review of white spot lesions in orthodontics.

Authors:  Gavin C Heymann; Dan Grauer
Journal:  J Esthet Restor Dent       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 2.843

7.  Fluoride release from a new glass-ionomer cement.

Authors:  P Neelakantan; S John; S Anand; N Sureshbabu; C Subbarao
Journal:  Oper Dent       Date:  2011-02-21       Impact factor: 2.440

8.  Fluoride dose-response of human and bovine enamel artificial caries lesions under pH-cycling conditions.

Authors:  Frank Lippert; Kalp Juthani
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 3.573

9.  Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and recharge of pre-reacted glass ionomer composite and nano-ionomeric glass ionomer with daily fluoride exposure: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Jayanthi Mungara; John Philip; Elizabeth Joseph; Sakthivel Rajendran; Arun Elangovan; Girija Selvaraju
Journal:  J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent       Date:  2013 Oct-Dec

10.  Fluoride release from glass ionomer cement in vivo and in vitro.

Authors:  S Hatibović-Kofman; G Koch
Journal:  Swed Dent J       Date:  1991
View more
  2 in total

1.  Evaluating fluoride uptake of dentin from different restorative materials at various time intervals - In vitro study.

Authors:  Sanjyot Mulay; Kunal Galankar; Saranya Varadarajan; Archana A Gupta
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2021-12-28

2.  The effect of pressure changes during simulated diving on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

Authors:  Meenal N Gulve; Nitin D Gulve
Journal:  Diving Hyperb Med       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 1.228

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.