Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the fluoride-releasing abilities of commercially available restorative materials such as—Activa™ BioActive-restorative™ material, Zirconomer (Shofu Inc), Beautifil® II (Shofu Inc), GC Gold Label 9 high strength posterior restorative glass ionomer cement (GIC Corp). Materials and methods: A total of 40 disk specimens (10 of each material) were placed into distilled/deionized (DI) water and the fluoride release was measured for 30 days. Fluoride ion measurement was performed at the end of the 1st, 3rd, 7th, 15th, and 30th day under normal atmospheric conditions by fluoride ion selective electrode (F-ISE) (Orion 9609 BNWP, Ionplus SureFlow fluoride electrode, Thermo Scientific, United States of America) coupled to a benchtop analyzer (Hachsen Ion+). Results: All the materials included in the study exhibited fluoride release. Although there were differences in the amounts of fluoride released between Activa™, Zirconomer, and GC Gold Label 9 the mean difference between these three groups was not found to be statistically significant. Beautifil<sup>®</sup> II showed low amounts of fluoride released at all time intervals. Conclusion: Among the above-compared materials Activa™ and Zirconomer exhibit both improved mechanical properties as well as they have fluoride-releasing ability so can be preferred over conventional glass ionomer restorations.
Bogale B, Engida F, Hanlon C, et al. Dental caries experience and associated factors in adults: a cross-sectional community survey within Ethiopia. BMC Public Health 2021;21:180. 2. Lara JS, Romano A, Murisi PU, et al. Impact of early childhood caries severity on oral health-related quality of life among preschool children in mexico - a cross-sectional study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2022;32(3):334–343. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12889 3. Meyer F, Enax J. Early childhood caries: epidemiology, aetiology, and prevention. Int J Dent 2018;2018:1415873. DOI: 10.1155/2018/1415873 4. Chen KJ, Gao SS, Duangthip D, et al. Prevalence of early childhood caries among 5-year-old children: a systematic review. J Investig Clin Dent 2019;10(1):e12376. DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12376 5. Tarasingh P, Reddy JS, Suhasini K, et al. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of resin-modified glass ionomers, compomers and giomers - an invitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(7):ZC85–ZC87. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/14364.6237 6. Chrysanthakopoulos NA. Reasons for placement and replacement of resin-based composite restorations in Greece. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2011;5(3):87–93. DOI: 10.5681/joddd.2011.020 7. Tiwari S, Kenchappa M, Bhayya D, et al. Antibacterial activity and fluoride release of glass-ionomer cement, compomer and zirconia reinforced glass-ionomer cement. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(4):ZC90–ZC93. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/16282.7676 8. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials–fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater 2007;23(3):343–362. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.022 9. 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 10. 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 11. Gao W, Smales RJ. Fluoride release/uptake of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers, and compomers. J Dent 2001;29(4):301–306. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(00)00053-1 12. Mungara J, Philip J, Joseph E, et al. 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. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2013;31(4):234–239. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.121820 13. Dziuk Y, Chhatwani S, Möhlhenrich SC, et al. Fluoride release from two types of fluoride-containing orthodontic adhesives: conventional versus resin-modified glass ionomer cements-an in vitro study. PloS One 2021;16(2):e0247716. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247716 14. Kishore G, Sai-Sankar AJ, Pratap-Gowd M, et al. Comparative evaluation of fluoride releasing ability of various restorative materials after the application of surface coating agents - an in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(12):ZC38–ZC41. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/21980.9047 15. Cho SY, Cheng AC. A review of glass ionomer restorations in the primary dentition. J Can Dent Assoc 1999;65(9):491–495. 16. Borges FT, Campos WR, Munari LS, et al. Cariostatic effect of fluoride-containing restorative materials associated with fluoride gels on root dentin. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18(5):453–460. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572010000500005 17. Kidd EA, Toffenetti F, Mjör IA. Secondary caries. Int Dent J 1992;42(3):127–138. 18. Fontana M, González-Cabezas C. Secondary caries and restoration replacement: an unresolved problem. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000;21(1):15–8, 21–4. 19. Freedman R, Diefenderfer KE. Effects of daily fluoride exposures on fluoride release by glass ionomer-based restoratives. Oper Dent 2003;28(2):178–185. 20. 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 21. Cildir SK, Sandalli N. Fluoride release/uptake of glass-ionomer cements and polyacid-modified composite resins. Dent Mater J 2005;24(1):92–97. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.24.92 22. Frankenberger R, Garcia-Godoy F, Krämer N. Clinical performance of viscous glass ionomer cement in posterior cavities over two years. Int J Dent 2009;2009:781462. DOI: 10.1155/2009/781462 23. Sainulabdeen S, Neelakantan P, Ramesh S, et al. Antibacterial activity of triclosan incorporated glass ionomer cements–an in vitro pilot study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010;35(2):157–161. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.2.96747l52725n608x 24. Botelho MG. Inhibitory effects on selected oral bacteria of antibacterial agents incorporated in a glass ionomer cement. Caries Res 2003;37(2):108–114. DOI: 10.1159/000069019 25. Hugar SM, Assudani HG, Patil V, et al. Comparative evaluation of the antibacterial efficacy of type II glass lonomer cement, Type IX glass lonomer cement, and AMALGOMERTM ceramic reinforcement by modified “direct contact test”: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(2):114–117. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1345 26. Dionysopoulos P, Kotsanos N, Koliniotou-Koubia E, et al. Inhibition of demineralization in vitro around fluoride releasing materials. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(12):1216–1222. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2003.01079.x 27. Donly KJ, Grandgenett C. Dentin demineralization inhibition at restoration margins of vitremer, dyract and compoglass. Am J Dent 1998;11(5):245–248. 28. Erickson RL, Glasspoole EA. Model investigations of caries inhibition by fluoride-releasing dental materials. Adv Dent Res 1995;9(3):315–323. DOI: 10.1177/08959374950090031801 29. Ozer F, Irmak O, Yakymiv O, et al. Three-year clinical performance of two giomer restorative materials in restorations. Oper Dent 2021;46(1):E60–E67. DOI: 10.2341/17-353-C 30. Paul S, Raina A, Kour S, et al. Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and re-release and recharge potential of zirconomer improved and cention. J Conserv Dent 2020;23(4):402–406. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_222_20 31. Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials. Dent Mater J 2018;37(2):293–300. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2017-161 32. Rai S, Kumari RA, Meena N. Comparative assessment of fluoride release and recharge through newer fluoride releasing posterior restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2019;22(6):544–547. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_92_19 33. May E, Donly KJ. Fluoride release and re-release from a bioactive restorative material. Am J Dent 2017;30(6):305–308. 34. Neelakantan P, John S, Anand S, et al. Fluoride release from a new glass-ionomer cement. Oper Dent 2011;36(1):80–85. DOI: 10.2341/10-219-LR 35. Chatzistavrou E, Eliades T, Zinelis S, et al. Fluoride release from an orthodontic glass ionomer adhesive in vitro and enamel fluoride uptake in vivo. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010;137(4):458.e1–458.e8;discussion 458–459. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.030 36. Oliveira GL, Carvalho CN, Carvalho EM, et al. The influence of mixing methods on the compressive strength and fluoride release of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Int J Dent 2019;2019:6834931. DOI: 10.1155/2019/6834931 37. Shashibhushan KK, Basappa N, Subba Reddy VV. Comparison of antibacterial activity of three fluorides- and zinc-releasing commercial glass ionomer cements on strains of mutans streptococci: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2008;26(Suppl 2):S56–S61. 38. Mousavinasab SM, Meyers I. Fluoride release by glass ionomer cements, compomer and giomer. Dent Res J 2009;6(2):75–81. 39. 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 40. Attar N, Onen A. Fluoride release and uptake characteristics of aesthetic restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(8):791–798. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00902.x 41. Yap AU, Tham SY, Zhu LY, et al. Short-term fluoride release from various aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2002;27(3):259–265. 42. Tay FR, Pashley EL, Huang C, et al. The glass-ionomer phase in resin-based restorative materials. J Dent Res 2001;80(9):1808–1812. DOI: 10.1177/00220345010800090701 43. Itota T, Carrick TE, Rusby S, et al. Determination of fluoride ions released from resin-based dental materials using ion-selective electrode and ion chromatograph. J Dent 2004;32(2):117–122. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2003.09.002 44. Forsten L. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: fluoride release and uptake. Acta Odontol Scand 1995;53(4):222–225. DOI: 10.3109/00016359509005976 45. 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 46. Garcez RM, Buzalaf MA, de Araújo PA. Fluoride release of six restorative materials in water and pH-cycling solutions. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15(5):406–411. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572007000500006 47. 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."
