Incorporation of Casein Phosphopeptide-Amorphous Calcium Phosphate into a Glass-ionomer Cement

Abstract

Casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) nanocomplexes have been shown to prevent demineralization and promote remineralization of enamel subsurface lesions in animal and in situ caries models. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of incorporating CPP-ACP into a self-cured glass-ionomer cement (GIC). Incorporation of 1.56% w/w CPP-ACP into the GIC significantly increased microtensile bond strength (33%) and compressive strength (23%) and significantly enhanced the release of calcium, phosphate, and fluoride ions at neutral and acidic pH. MALDI mass spectrometry also showed casein phosphopeptides from the CPP-ACP nanocomplexes to be released. The release of CPP-ACP and fluoride from the CPP-ACP-containing GIC was associated with enhanced protection of the adjacent dentin during acid challenge in vitro.

The crushing truth about glass ionomer restoratives: Exposing the standard of the standard

“…The findings demonstrate that the CFS testing protocol is reliable but conflicts with previously reported data [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Considerable efforts were made to standardise techniques and laboratory conditions, however, the large variability in the CFS data reported in the dental literature for GI materials suggests that this level of control is infrequently applied.…”

“…This finding is contrary to the large body of the published information available on GI restoratives in the dental literature [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] which includes results of investigations undertaken in the same test centre using the same laboratory protocols [20][21][22][23][24]. The results are also in contrast to the variability identified by the ISO approach using batch-censoring.…”

“…In the current statistical analysis the differences in the CFS data between the three GI restoratives was not of interest, as the reported CFS for GI restoratives vary in accordance with the dental literature [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. As a result, the CFS data for each GI restorative was analysed individually, using three three-way ANOVAs (operator × mixing regime × batch) such that differences between the materials would not influence the analyses.…”

“…During this time only a limited number of investigators have adopted alternative and potentially more valid strength determination methods for GIs in which the failure mode is reproducible [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. In contrast, a significant body of evidence has been presented for GIs [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] which could account for the lack of reliability of the CFS test method observed in the 1990 test-house variability study [8]. It has been demonstrated that the proportioning of constituents [20][21][22]24,[37][38], mixing technique [20][21][23][24] and mould design [20][21][22][23][24][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]…”

Current Fluoride-releasing Restorative Materials Used in Pediatric Dentistry

“…Bu durum materyale eklenen gümüşün veya gümüş florürün, florür iyonlarını bağ-laması ve böylece florür salımını engellemesi ile açıklanabilir. Buna karşılık biyoaktif cam veya kazein fosfopeptit-amorf kalsiyum fosfat içeren cam iyonomerlerin florür salımının geleneksel cam iyonomerlere kıyasla daha yüksek olduğu düşünülmektedir (26,27).…”