Sanjyot Mulay1, Kunal Galankar1, Saranya Varadarajan2, Archana A Gupta3. 1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, India. 2. Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, India. 3. Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glass ionomer cement is very popular in clinical practice due to their antibacterial and cariostatic properties, which is totally dependant on the amount of fluoride release and uptake by dentine. The short-term and long-term fluoride uptake by dentine from commercially available restorative materials like nano-ionomer, zirconia reinforced glass ionomer cement and flowable composite is of clinical interest. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare Nano-ionomer, Zirconia reinforced glass ionomer, and flowable composite resin for the fluoride uptake by dentin at different time intervals. RESULTS: One-way ANOVA (Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparison Test) was applied to test the comparison of mean values of all parameters compared together. The student's paired 't' test was applied to compare groups. The fluoride uptake was evaluated at 3 days and 42 days. At 3 days dentin showed higher fluoride uptake with Zirconomer (Group Z) as compared to Ketac N100 and SDR Composite which was statistically significant. At 42 days higher fluoride uptake was seen in Ketac N100 (Group K) as compared to Zirconomer and SDR composite which was also statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Fluoride uptake by dentine was seen in all study materials. Fluoride uptake by dentine at 3 days was seen maximum in Zirconomer, whereas fluoride uptake at 42 days was more in Ketac N100.
BACKGROUND: Glass ionomer cement is very popular in clinical practice due to their antibacterial and cariostatic properties, which is totally dependant on the amount of fluoride release and uptake by dentine. The short-term and long-term fluoride uptake by dentine from commercially available restorative materials like nano-ionomer, zirconia reinforced glass ionomer cement and flowable composite is of clinical interest. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare Nano-ionomer, Zirconia reinforced glass ionomer, and flowable composite resin for the fluoride uptake by dentin at different time intervals. RESULTS: One-way ANOVA (Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparison Test) was applied to test the comparison of mean values of all parameters compared together. The student's paired 't' test was applied to compare groups. The fluoride uptake was evaluated at 3 days and 42 days. At 3 days dentin showed higher fluoride uptake with Zirconomer (Group Z) as compared to Ketac N100 and SDR Composite which was statistically significant. At 42 days higher fluoride uptake was seen in Ketac N100 (Group K) as compared to Zirconomer and SDR composite which was also statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Fluoride uptake by dentine was seen in all study materials. Fluoride uptake by dentine at 3 days was seen maximum in Zirconomer, whereas fluoride uptake at 42 days was more in Ketac N100.