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

Mungara, Jayanthi; Philip, John; Joseph, Elizabeth; Rajendran, Senthilkumar; Elangovan, Arun; Selvaraju, Girija

doi:10.4103/0970-4388.121820

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PRG Barrier Coat ® is a tooth coating material that is often applied to cervical, contact, and caries prone areas to prevent tooth decay or erosion. It contains S-PRG ionomer as fillers, which releases and recharges F − , Sr 2+ , Na + , 2 3 SiO − , Al 3+ , and 3 3 BO − [14] and hence provides a protective property against demineralized lesions [15]. PRG Barrier Coat ® improved remineralization of eroded enamel in the present study, supporting previous reports.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Evaluating Acid Resistance Effect of Fluoride-Releasing Dental Materials Using Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence-Digital in Vitro

Watanabe¹,

Sasabe²,

Watanabe³

2016

OJST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As erosion has become one of the serious oral health problems, some fluoride-releasing dental materials have been developed to protect enamel from demineralization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the antidemineralization effect of PRG Barrier Coat ® and FujiVII ® (fluoridereleasing dental materials). Four square windows measuring 1 mm 2 were prepared on the labial enamel surface of each bovine tooth using masking tape and nail varnish. The first and second windows were half covered by fluoride-releasing material and control material, respectively, whereas the third and fourth windows were left untreated. All windows were immersed into 0.1 M lactic acid and 6wt% CM-cellulose (pH 4.5) at 38˚C for 21 days. Subsequently, the first and second windows were covered with nail varnish after removal of the materials, and the third and fourth windows were immersed into ultrapure water at 38˚C for 28 days after being half covered with fluoride-releasing and control materials, respectively. The following procedure was performed separately during evaluations of the fluoride-releasing materials, PRG Barrier Coat ® , and FujiVII ® , using eight and six bovine teeth, respectively. The first, second, third, and fourth windows were classified into DM-PRG; Demineralized-PRG or DM-FujiVII; Demineralized-FujiVII, DM-TCM; Demineralized-traditional cement or DM-TGIC; Demineralized-traditional glass ionomer cement, RM-PRG; Remineralized-PRG or RM-FujiVII; Remineralized-FujiVII, and RM-TCM; Remineralizedtraditional cement or RM-TGIC; Remineralized-traditional glass ionomer cement, respectively. After nail varnish was removed, ∆Q values (mean ± SD) of the windows were measured using QLF-D and were compared between DM-PRG and DM-TCM, RM-PRG and RM-TCM, DM-FujiVII and DM-TGIC, and RM-FujiVII and RM-TGIC groups. ∆Q values of RM-PRG (−60 ± 44) and RM-FujiVII (−5.0 ± 10) were significantly higher than that of RM-TCM (−315 ± 193) and RM-TGIC (−56 ± 43), re-* Corresponding author. K. Watanabe et al. 128 spectively. The fluoride releasing materials provided remineralization effects to bovine enamel.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Evaluating Acid Resistance Effect of Fluoride-Releasing Dental Materials Using Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence-Digital in Vitro

Watanabe¹,

Sasabe²,

Watanabe³

2016

OJST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reducing the filler particle size can increase fluoride release because smaller particles have larger surface areas. 1 26 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Its progression or control depends on the balance between pathological and protective factors, and the best strategy for caries management is focused on methods of improving the remineralizing process. 1 2 When a restorative intervention is necessary, the use of materials with minimal aggression to the tooth structure and cariostatic, adhesive, and biocompatible properties must be prioritized. 3 Since their introduction by Wilson and Kent and clinical development by McLean and Wilson, glass ionomer cements (GICs) have been largely used in restorative dentistry because of their ability to reduce the incidence of caries affecting unrestored tooth surfaces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do conventional glass ionomer cements release more fluoride than resin-modified glass ionomer cements?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the fluoride release of conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) and resin-modified GICs.Materials and MethodsThe cements were grouped as follows: G1 (Vidrion R, SS White), G2 (Vitro Fil, DFL), G3 (Vitro Molar, DFL), G4 (Bioglass R, Biodinâmica), and G5 (Ketac Fil, 3M ESPE), as conventional GICs, and G6 (Vitremer, 3M ESPE), G7 (Vitro Fil LC, DFL), and G8 (Resiglass, Biodinâmica) as resin-modified GICs. Six specimens (8.60 mm in diameter; 1.65 mm in thickness) of each material were prepared using a stainless steel mold. The specimens were immersed in a demineralizing solution (pH 4.3) for 6 hr and a remineralizing solution (pH 7.0) for 18 hr a day. The fluoride ions were measured for 15 days. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test with 5% significance were applied.ResultsThe highest amounts of fluoride release were found during the first 24 hr for all cements, decreasing abruptly on day 2, and reaching gradually decreasing levels on day 7. Based on these results, the decreasing scale of fluoride release was as follows: G2 > G3 > G8 = G4 = G7 > G6 = G1 > G5 (p < 0.05).ConclusionsThere were wide variations among the materials in terms of the cumulative amount of fluoride ion released, and the amount of fluoride release could not be attributed to the category of cement, that is, conventional GICs or resin-modified GICs.

show abstract

“…Short and long-term fluoride release from dental restorative materials depends upon several factors including the amount of fluoride incorporated and matrices of materials. [ 14 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis, fluoride release, and antimicrobial properties of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment

Saxena¹,

Tiwari²

2016

J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of this study was to compare constituents of glass powder, fluoride release, and antimicrobial properties of new atraumatic restorative treatment material with zirconia fillers and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) type IX.Materials and Methods:Thisin vitro study comparing Zirconomer and Fuji IX was executed in three parts: (1) energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis of glass powders (2) analysis of fluoride release at 1st, 3rd, 7th, 15th, and 30th day, and (3) antimicrobial activity against Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus casei, and Candida albicans at 48 hours. Data was analyzed using unpaired t-test and two way analysis of variance followed by least significant difference post hoc test. A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results:Energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis revealed that, in both Zirconomer and Fuji IX glass powders, mean atomic percentage of oxygen was more than 50%. According to the weight percentage, zirconium in Zirconomer and silica in Fuji IX were the second main elements. Calcium, zinc, and zirconium were observed only in Zirconomer. At all the time intervals, statistically significant higher amount of fluoride release was observed with Zirconomer than Fuji IX. At 48 hours, mean ± standard deviation (SD) of zone of inhibition against Streptococcus mutans was 11.14 ± 0.77 mm and 8.51 ± 0.43 mm for Zirconomer and Fuji IX, respectively. Against Lactobacillus casei, it was 14.06 ± 0.71 mm for Zirconomer and 11.70 ± 0.39 mm for Fuji IX. No antifungal activity was observed against Candida albicans by Zirconomer and Fuji IX.Conclusion:Zirconomer had higher antibacterial activity against Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus casei, which may be attributed to its composition and higher fluoride release. However, it failed to show antifungal effect againstCandida albicans.

show abstract

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

Abstract: Nano-ionomeric glass ionomer demonstrated a greater ability to release and recharge compared with that of PRG composite.

Cited by 22 publications

References 2 publications

Evaluating Acid Resistance Effect of Fluoride-Releasing Dental Materials Using Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence-Digital in Vitro

Evaluating Acid Resistance Effect of Fluoride-Releasing Dental Materials Using Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence-Digital in Vitro

Do conventional glass ionomer cements release more fluoride than resin-modified glass ionomer cements?

Energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis, fluoride release, and antimicrobial properties of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About