ObjectiveThis in vitro study compares the fluoride release from microlaminated glass ionomer based on glass hybrid technology coated with two different surface coating agents.Materials and MethodsA total of 18 samples were divided into three groups of six samples each: (1) glass ionomer Equia Forte Fil coated with Equia Forte Coat (Equia+EC), (2) glass ionomer Equia Forte Fil coated with GC Fuji Varnish (Equia+VC) and (3) uncoated glass ionomer Equia Forte (EQUIA cont). Fluoride release was measured using an ion-selective electrode (ORION EA 940) after 24 hours, 4 days, 30 days and 64 days. Repeated measures ANOVA, multiple comparisons, Tukey's test and paired t-test were used to test the differences between the groups.ResultsThe differences between the groups and four time points were statistically significant (ANOVA, p<0.0001). Cumulative fluoride ion release after 64 days was 66.01 mg/l, 123.54mg/l and 203.22 mg/l for EQUIA+EC, EQUIA+VC and EQUIA cont, respectively. All the differences were statistically significant except the difference between EQUIA+VC and EQUIA cont after 24 hours.ConclusionsThe amount of released fluoride was significantly lower in the samples coated with nanofilled surface coating agent compared to the samples coated with varnish and uncoated samples.

Objectives to determine the mechanical properties of hybrid and high-viscosity glass ionomer cements. Compressive strength and hardness of three glass ionomer cements (GIC) were measured: Ketac ™ Universal Aplicap ™, EQUIA Fil® and EQUIA FORTE Fil®, and the SEM sample analysis were performed. Materials and Methods The samples for measuring the compressive strength were prepared using silicone molds with standard dimensions of 6 mm x 4 mm and stored in deionized water for five days, while the samples for hardness measurement were prepared using Teflon molds with a cylindrical opening in the middle, dimensions 2 mm in height and 5 mm in width. For each material, one sample was made (n = 1) and stored in deionized water at 37ºC for 25 days. A representative sample of each material was analyzed using SEM. For the comparison of obtained values, the ANOVA test was used, while Tukey test was used for the multiple comparison. Results There were no significant differences between the compressive strength of the three tested materials (p <0.05). The hardness values were: 157 HV0,2 for Ketac ™ Universal Aplicap ™, 47 HV0,2 for EQUIA Fil® and 39 HV0,2 for EQUIA FORTE Fil®, respectively, and were significantly different, implying that Ketac ™ Universal Aplicap ™ has much higher hardness values than the other materials tested. SEM sample analysis revealed similar fracture modes of the tested materials. Conclusion It was concluded that there were no statistically significant differences in compressive strength and fracture modes between the tested materials, while Ketac ™ Universal Aplicap ™ hardness results were significantly higher than the ones measured for EQUIA Fil® and EQUIA FORTE Fil®.

No abstract

Children with intellectual disabilities have more developmental defects of enamel than children in the control group. Enamel defects increase caries risk and cause reduction in enamel mechanical properties leading to restoration failures.