International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  17 (2024)
Volume  16 (2023)
Volume  15 (2022)
Volume  14 (2021)
Volume  13 (2020)
Volume  12 (2019)
Volume  11 (2018)
Volume  10 (2017)
Volume  9 (2016)
Volume  8 (2015)
Volume  7 (2014)
Volume  6 (2013)
Volume  5 (2012)
Volume  4 (2011)
Volume  3 (2010)
Volume  2 (2009)
Volume  1 (2008)
Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Fluoride Ion Release Pre and Postrecharge Situations among Three Different Pediatric Dental Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study

Merlyn R Mathias, Vikas D Bendgude, Rashmi S Chauhan, Apurva Borde, Tripti Lath, Sejal S Shah

Keywords : Acidulated phosphate fluoride gel, Fluoride release, Fluoride rerelease, Ion selective electrode

Citation Information : Mathias MR, Bendgude VD, Chauhan RS, Borde A, Lath T, Shah SS. Comparative Fluoride Ion Release Pre and Postrecharge Situations among Three Different Pediatric Dental Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022; 15 (6):729-735.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2461

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-02-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Objectives: To determine the initial fluoride (F) release and rerelease after recharge of three pediatric dental restorative materials when aged in artificial saliva (M1) and deionized water (M2). Materials and methods: A total of 30 disks, 10 disks of each restorative material R1: Jen Rainbow, Jen Dent Ukraine; R2: Tetric® N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent, and R3: resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Fuji II LC- GC Corporation) were fabricated and were tested for F dynamics in two different media, M1: artificial saliva, M2: deionized water group. The F initial release was measured on the 1st, 7th, 14th, 21st, and 30th day, and on the 31st day, acidulated phosphate F (APF) gel was applied and F rerelease was measured on the 31st, 37th, 44th, 51st, and 60th day using F ion-specific electrode (Orion). The result was statistically analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Bonferroni test. Results: Fluoride (F) ion release was significantly higher in deionized water than in artificial saliva (M1), and F ion rerelease (after recharge) was significantly higher in artificial saliva (M1). Fuji-II LC demonstrated a significantly (p < 0.05) higher F release and rerelease among all the tested materials. Among the tested composites, R2: Tetric® N-Flow exhibited significantly higher F dynamics than R1: Jen Rainbow composite. Conclusion: All the tested restorative materials exhibited optimum F release (0.024 ppm, that is, the range to prevent newer carious lesions) in both the pre and postrecharge conditions. Even though Fuji-II LC demonstrated significantly better F dynamics in the tested scenarios, Tetric® N-Flow has the additional advantage of improved mechanical retentive and esthetic properties along with the optimum F release in pre and postrecharge scenarios.

PDF Share
  1. Petersen PE, Bourgeois D, Ogawa H, et al. The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. Bull World Health Organ 2005;83(9):661–669. DOI: 10.1590/S0042-96862005000900011
  2. Klai S, Altenburger M, Spitzmüller B, et al. Antimicrobial effects of dental luting glass ionomer cements on streptococcus mutans. Scientific World Journal 2014;2014;807086. DOI: 10.1155/2014/807086
  3. Weidlich P, Miranda LA, Maltz M, et al. Fluoride release and uptake from glass ionomer cements and composite resins. Braz Dent J 2000;11(2):89–96.
  4. World Health Organization. WHO expert consultation on public health intervention against early childhood caries report of a meeting, Bangkok, Thailand, 2016;26–28.
  5. Neelakantan P, John S, Anand S, et al. Fluoride release from a new glass-ionomer cement. Oper Dent 2011;36(1):80–85.
  6. Vermeersch G, Leloup G, Vreven J. Fluoride release from glass-ionomer cements, compomers and resin composites. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28(1):26–32. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00635.x
  7. Pedrini D, Delbem AC, de França JG, et al. Fluoride release by restorative materials before and after a topical application of fluoride gel. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2003;17(2):137–141. DOI: 10.1590/s1517-74912003000200007
  8. Attar N, Turgut MD. Fluoride release and uptake capacities of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Oper Dent 2003;28(4):395–402.
  9. Dionysopoulos D. The effect of fluoride-releasing restorative materials on inhibition of secondary caries formation. Fluoride 2014;47(3):258–265.
  10. Jingarwar MM, Pathak A, Bajwa NK, et al. Quantitative assessment of fluoride release and recharge ability of different restorative materials in different media: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(12):ZC31–ZC34. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9985.5275
  11. Yoda A, Nikaido T, Ikeda M, et al. Effect of curing method and storage condition on fluoride ion release from a fluoride-releasing resin cement. Dent Mater J 2006;25(2):261–266. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.25.261
  12. G Nigam A, Jaiswal J, Murthy R, et al. Estimation of fluoride release from various dental materials in different media-an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009;2(1):1–8. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1033
  13. Upadhyay S, Rao A, Shenoy R. Comparison of the amount of fluoride release from nanofilled resin modified glass ionomer, conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements. J Dent (Tehran) 2013;10(2):134–140.
  14. Gleisner H, Einax JW, Morés S, et al. A fast and accurate method for the determination of total and soluble fluorine in toothpaste using high-resolution graphite furnace molecular absorption spectrometry and its comparison with established techniques. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2011;54(5):1040–1046. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2010.12.013
  15. Paschoal MA, Gurgel CV, Rios D, et al. Fluoride release profile of a nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Braz Dent J 2011;22(4):275–279. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402011000400002
  16. Nagi SM, Moharam LM, Hoshy AZ. Fluoride release and recharge of enhanced resin modified glass ionomer at different time intervals. Futur Dent J 2018;4(2):221–224. DOI: 10.1016/j.fdj.2018.06.005
  17. Preston AJ, Mair LH, Agalamanyi EA, et al. Fluoride release from aesthetic dental materials. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26(2):123–129. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00357.x
  18. Lee SY, Dong DR, Huang HM, et al. Fluoride ion diffusion from a glass-ionomer cement. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27(7):576–586. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00554.x
  19. Hattab FN, Amin WM. Fluoride release from glass ionomer restorative materials and the effects of surface coating. Biomaterials 2001;22(12):1449–1458. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(00)00253-2
  20. Kowsari A, Mahmoodian Jh, Ghavami T. An In-vitro study on the release of fluoride from two restorative materials and their rechargeability after exposure to daily 1000 ppm fluoride. J Dent (Tehran) 2005;2(3):79–85.
  21. Mousavinasab SM, Meyers I. Fluoride release by glass ionomer cements, compomer and giomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2009;6(2):75–81.
  22. Gandolfi MG, Chersoni S, Acquaviva GL, et al. Fluoride release and absorption at different pH from glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2006;22(5):441–449. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.036
  23. Karantakis P, Helvatjoglou-Antoniades M, Theodoridou-Pahini S, et al. Fluoride release from three glass ionomers, a compomer, and a composite resin in water, artificial saliva, and lactic acid. Oper Dent 2000;25(1):20–25.
  24. Gururaj M, Shetty R, Nayak M, et al. Fluoride releasing and uptake capacities of esthetic restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(5):887–891. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1421
  25. Harhash AY, ElSayad II, Zaghloul AGS. A comparative in vitro study on fluoride release and water sorption of different flowable esthetic restorative materials. Eur J Dent 2017;11(2):174–179. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_228_16
  26. Hasan AMHR, Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement (”glass carbomer™”) compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2019;27(1):e20180230. DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0230
  27. Rao BS, Moosani GK, Shanmugaraj M, et al. Fluoride release and uptake of five dental restoratives from mouthwashes and dentifrices. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(1):1–5.
  28. Vieira AR, de Souza IP, Modesto A. Fluoride uptake and release by composites and glass ionomers in a high caries challenge situation. Am J Dent 1999;12(1):14–18.
  29. Quader SA, Alam MS, Bashar A, et al. Compressive strength, fluoride release and recharge of giomer. Updat Dent Coll J 2012;2(2):28–37. DOI: 10.3329/updcj.v2i2.15533
  30. Ghajari MF, Torabzadeh H, Safavi N, et al. Fluoride release from three glass ionomers after exposure to sodium fluoride and acidulated phosphate fluoride gels. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2014;11(5):604–609.
  31. Bansal R, Bansal T. A comparative evaluation of the amount of fluoride release and re-release after recharging from aesthetic restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(8):ZC11–ZC14. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/11926.6278
  32. Naoum S, Ellakwa A, Martin F, et al. Fluoride release, recharge and mechanical property stability of various fluoride-containing resin composites. Oper Dent 2011;36(4):422–432. DOI: 10.2341/10-414-L
  33. Yusoff NNAbN, Ariffin Z, Hassan A, et al. Fluoride release from dental restorations in de-ionized water and artificial saliva. Int Med J 2013;20(5):635–638.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.