Fluoride release from a glass ionomer cement

abstract – The release of fluoride from a glass ionomer cement (ASPA®) was. compared with that from a silicate cement. Test specimens were shaken in a solution with hydroxyapadte for 7 weeks. The solution was changed every week and the fluoride taken up by the hydroxyapatite measured. The specimens released considerably more fluoride during each of the first 2 weeks than during each of the subsequent 5 weeks. The continued release did not decrease very much with time. Slightly more fluoride was released from the glass ionomer cement than from the silicate.     

Fluoride release from a fluoride-containing amalgam, a glass ionomer cement and a silicate cement in artificial saliva

This study aimed to compare the fluoride release from a flouride-containing amalgam, a silicate cement and a glass ionomer cement in artificial saliva. After storing specimens in an artificial saliva for 7 weeks, the fluoride content in the solvent was measured by a spectrophotometric method. The fluoride release from silicate cement was about 5 times greater than from glass ionomer cement, which again showed a release 4 times greater than the fluoride-containing amalgam. The fluoride release relative to fluoride content in test specimens was greater from fluoride-containing amalgam and silicate cement than from glass ionomer cement.     

Long-term F release from glass ionomer cements

Fluoride release from three commercial glass ionomer filling cements and three glass ionomer luting cements was measured in the laboratory over a 12-month period. Fluoride release from these glass ionomer cements was compared with that released from a silicate, silicophosphate, and a fluoride-containing polycarboxylate cement. The fluoride released from the glass ionomer cements throughout the one-year period was similar, both in quantity and pattern, to that released by the silicate cement. The silicophosphate cement tended to release fluoride in somewhat lesser amounts, while the amount of fluoride released by the polycarboxylate was negligible after the first few days. Analysis of these data indicates that these glass ionomer cements probably possess anticariogenic properties similar to those of silicate cement.     

Evaluation of a new 2-paste glass ionomer cement

A new 2-paste resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement, Fuji Ortho Band Paste Pak (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), for the placement of orthodontic bands, has been developed for easier handling. The aim of this study was to compare the fluoride release and uptake characteristics of this cement with that of 3 others commonly used to cement orthodontic bands: a conventional resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement, a polyacid-modified composite resin, and a conventional glass ionomer cement. Fluoride release was measured during a 28-day period. After the measurement on day 28, experimental samples were exposed to 1000 ppm sodium fluoride solution for 5 minutes, and fluoride release was then measured for 7 days. Initially, the new 2-paste resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement released the greatest amount of fluoride; the polyacid-modified composite resin released the least initially, and it continued to show the lowest values throughout the study. The fluoride uptake and release values of the new 2-paste resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement were statistically significantly higher than those of the conventional resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement or the conventional glass ionomer cement. The new 2-paste resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement might be a good alternative to conventional products for cementing orthodontic bands.     

Fluoride release and uptake by glass ionomers

Abstract – The aim was to study the fluoride release 1) from 7 and 15-month-old glass ionomer specimens after treating them with fluoride; 2) from fresh compared with matured material; and 3) from specimens stored for 29 months in running water. Glass ionomer test specimens which had been in running water for first 7 then 15 months were treated with a 50 ppm fluoride solution after which the specimens were again exposed to running water for first 24 h and then 1 wk. The fluoride release was measured after each of the two periods of time. The fluoride treated specimens released more fluoride than the nontreated ones. This effect was not observed with composite resin specimens which were studied for comparison. Fluoride release from fresh glass ionomer specimens was observed to be 3–10 fold compared to specimens that had matured for 3 days. The release of fluoride from specimens that had been in running water for 29 months was measured and the results were compared with those of earlier measurements. It was found that the release reached a constant level for all tested glass ionomers during the second year.     

Fluoride release and uptake by glass ionomers

The aim was to study the fluoride release 1) from 7 and 15-month-old glass ionomer specimens after treating them with fluoride; 2) from fresh compared with matured material; and 3) from specimens stored for 29 months in running water. Glass ionomer test specimens which had been in running water for first 7 then 15 months were treated with a 50 ppm fluoride solution after which the specimens were again exposed to running water for first 24 h and then 1 wk. The fluoride release was measured after each of the two periods of time. The fluoride treated specimens released more fluoride than the nontreated ones. This effect was not observed with composite resin specimens which were studied for comparison. Fluoride release from fresh glass ionomer specimens was observed to be 3-10 fold compared to specimens that had matured for 3 days. The release of fluoride from specimens that had been in running water for 29 months was measured and the results were compared with those of earlier measurements. It was found that the release reached a constant level for all tested glass ionomers during the second year.     

Long-term fluoride release from a glass ionomer cement,a compomer,and from experimental resin composites

The aqueous phase of glass ionomer cements enables fluoride ions to diffuse and to be released from the material. The matrix of resin composites is much less hydrophilic, and fluoride incorporated in the material is only released in small amounts. It was the purpose of the present work to study the influence of resin matrix formulation on the fluoride release from experimental, fluoride-containing resin composites. The resin composites were based on methacrylate monomers and the adduct of maleic anhydride and HEMA (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate). The resin composites contained 1 w% or 5 w% of AlF3*3H2O. A glass ionomer cement and a compomer were used as controls. Five disks of each material were stored in distilled water at room temperature. By means of a fluoride sensitive electrode, the fluoride release from disk-shaped specimens was determined periodically over 3 years. The glass ionomer cement released the most fluoride (1.54 +/- 4 microg/cm2 after 1 year and 248 +/- 7 microg/cm2 after 3 years). The compomer released relatively little fluoride during the 1st year (30 +/- 1 microg/cm2) but after this time the rate of fluoride release became equal to that of the glass ionomer cement, resulting in a release of 122 +/- 8 microg/cm2 after 3 years. Regarding the resin composites, the fluoride release increased with the hydrophilicity and the acid character of the polymer matrix. The release, however, was significantly lower than that from the glass ionomer cement and the compomer and ranged from 1.2 +/- 0.07 to 42 +/- 3.9 microg/cm2 at 1 year and from 2.3 +/- 0.16 to 79 +/- 6 microg/cm2 at 3 years.     

A comparison of fluoride release from three glass ionomer cements and a polycarboxylate cement

Abstract. This study investigated the fluoride release from three glass ionomer cements, ASPA, ChemFil and ChemBond, and a fluoride-enriched polycarboxylate cement, Poly-F Plus, using a simulated model cavity system. ChemFil released considerably more fluoride than the other materials at all the time intervals investigated. The release from ASPA was greater than that for either ChemBond or Poly-F Plus. Release from ChemFil and ASPA was of a similar order to a silicate cement investigated previously and it is expected that this release should confer some protection against secondary caries.     

Fluoride release of glass ionomer-based luting cements in vitro.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: There is considerable variation in generic formulation and in reported fluoride release from resin-modified glass ionomer luting cements. PURPOSE: This study compared fluoride release from 2 generically similar resin-modified glass ionomer luting cements (Vitremer and Advance) with release from 2 conventional glass ionomer luting cements (Ketac-Cem and Fuji I). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten specimen disks of each of the 4 luting cements were fabricated and immersed in deionized water in individual polystyrene jars. The jars were stored in a humidor at 37 degrees C between test periods. At the same time each day, for 28 days, fluoride release from each specimen disk was measured in parts per million by testing the storage water. RESULTS: The 4 luting cements tested showed an initial high concentration of fluoride release during the first week, followed by a gradual decrease over the study period. Vitremer luting cement demonstrated the greatest mean cumulative fluoride release in parts per million over the study period (198), followed by Fuji I (140), Ketac-Cem (110), and Advance (99) luting cements. CONCLUSIONS: Resin-modified glass ionomer luting cements showed fluoride release comparable to the conventional glass ionomer luting cements. Vitremer luting cement released more fluoride over the 28-day period than the other cements.     

Fluoride release from varnish-coated silicates and from cavity liners and fissure sealants

abstract — The fluoride release of varnish-coated silicates and liners and sealants was studied by measuring the uptake of the released fluoride by synthetic hydroxyapatite. Silicate specimens were made and coated with cavity varnish. The specimens were shaken in solution with the apatite for 7 weeks. The apatite was analyzed for fluoride each week and the specimens were then transferred to a fresh solution with new apatite. The varnish reduced the fluoride release during the first three weeks, but after that time the release from the varnish-coated specimens was the same as that from the uncoated specimens. The release from the liners and sealants was studied by coating composite resin specimens with the material. The resin contained no fluoride. The specimens were shaken in solution with apatite and the fluoride uptake was measured each week in the same manner as for the silicate specimens. The liners showed an initial release of fluoride. When the two different sealants were applied as two layers, only one of the brands showed initial release of fluoride. Five layers of sealant resulted in an initial release from both brands.     

Fluoride release from glass ionomer-lined amalgam restorations

This study evaluated the amount of fluoride released from glass ionomer-lined amalgam restorations. 50 human extracted molars were divided into five groups of 10 teeth each. Group 1: No restorations. Group 2: Class V cavities (2 x 2 x 7 mm) were made on the facial and lingual surfaces and restored with Dispersalloy amalgam. Group 3: Same as Group 2 except 1 mm of Ketac-Bond glass ionomer cement (GIC) was placed on the axial wall before amalgam insertion. Group 4: Same as Group 2 except 1 mm of Chelon-Silver glass ionomer cement (GIC) was placed on the axial wall before amalgam insertion. Group 5: Same as Group 2 except 1 mm of Ketac-Silver GIC was used before amalgam insertion. Before any treatment, all samples were placed in polyethylene vials with 4 ml of deionized water and thermocycled (100x) for baseline fluoride release levels. After restoration, each tooth was placed in a vial with 4 ml of fresh deionized water. At weekly intervals, each tooth was removed from its aqueous medium and transferred to another vial containing 4 ml of deionized water. Fluoride release was measured four times at weekly intervals with an Orion #9609 fluoride-ion electrode. At one week, Ketac-Bond released significantly more fluoride than Ketac-Silver (P less than 0.01) which released significantly more fluoride than Chelon-Silver (P less than 0.01). At four weeks, there was no significant difference in fluoride release between Chelon-Silver and Ketac-Silver, but Ketac-Bond released significantly more fluoride than either of the other materials (P less than 0.01).     

Fluoride release from three glass ionomers, a compomer, and a composite resin in water, artificial saliva, and lactic acid

The amounts and the pattern of fluoride release from one metal-reinforced glass ionomer cement, two resin-modified glass ionomer cements, one compomer, and one composite resin placed in double-distilled water, artificial saliva, and lactic acid were evaluated in this study. Measurements of fluoride ion release were made for a total of 105 cylindrical specimens (10 mm in diameter and 1.5 mm in height). They were taken over a period of 16 weeks at the intervals of 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours, as well as 2, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, and 112 days. The pattern of fluoride release was similar for all of the examined materials. The greatest amount of fluoride was released from the metal-reinforced glass ionomer Argion. The resin-modified glass ionomers Vitremer, Fuji II LC; the compomer Dyract; and the composite resin Tetric followed in ranking order. The pH of the environment strongly affected the fluoride release from the materials. There was a significant difference (P < 0.001) in the amounts of fluoride released in lactic acid vs water and artificial saliva, whereas, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the amounts of fluoride released in water vs artificial saliva.     

Fluoride release in vitro from various glass ionomer cements and resin composites after exposure to NaF solutions

The release of fluoride from 1) discs made from five glass ionomer cements and two composites, and 2) the same discs after exposure to different NaF solutions, were studied. The specimens were placed in distilled water for 10 wk. After 24 h and then once a week, the specimens were transferred to fresh distilled water. After 5 wk, the specimens were divided into four groups and exposed to 0, 0.02, 0.2 and 2% NaF solutions for 5 min. The fluoride release was highest during the first week after preparation, after which it decreased sharply and then more slowly. The amount of fluoride released was ordered: liner/base>restorative glass ionomer>composites. The composites released significantly less fluoride than the glass ionomer cements. After exposure to NaF, the fluoride release was significantly higher for the silver cermet material than for the other glass ionomers tested. From a clinical point of view, the results from this study imply that glass ionomer restorations may act as intraoral devices for the controlled slow release of fluoride at sites at risk for recurrent caries.     

Fluoride release from amalgam restorations lined with a silver-reinforced glass ionomer

This study evaluated the amount of fluoride released from amalgam restorations lined with a silver-reinforced glass ionomer. Thirty human extracted molars were divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. Group 1: Class V cavities were made on the facial surfaces and restored with Dispersalloy amalgam. Group 2: Same as Group 1 except 1 mm of GC Lining glass ionomer cement (GIC) was placed on the axial wall before amalgam insertion. Group 3: Same as Group 2 except 1 mm of Miracle Mix silver-reinforced glass ionomer cement (GIC) was placed on the axial wall before amalgam insertion. Before any treatment, all samples were placed in polyethylene vials with 4 ml of deionized water and thermocycled (100x) for baseline fluoride release levels. After restoration, each tooth was replaced in a vial with 4 ml of deionized water. At weekly intervals, each tooth was removed from its aqueous medium and transferred to another vial containing 4 ml of deionized water. Fluoride release was measured four times at weekly intervals with an Orion #9609 fluoride-ion electrode. At 1 and 4 weeks, Miracle Mix released significantly more fluoride than GC Lining (P less than 0.0001).     

Fluoride release from orthodontic band cements-a comparison of two in vitro models

Objectives. To compare, in vitro, the fluoride release from a conventional glass ionomer cement (Ketac-Cem), a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (3M-Multicure) and a polyacid modified composite (Ultra Band-Lok) using a banded tooth model and a disc model with the same mean cement weight.Methods. Forty pairs of caries-free third molars were collected and divided into two groups, each of 20 teeth. One tooth from each pair was banded with Ketac-Cem and the other with Ultra Band-Lok or 3M-Multicure; the average band size for each cement group was the same. Two coats of nail varnish were painted on each tooth to within 1mm of the band margin. Five discs (4.5mm diameter and 2mm depth) were prepared for each cement, these dimensions having been calculated so that the mean cement weight of the banded tooth model matched that of the disc model for each cement. The fluoride released into 2ml of deionised water, from each banded tooth or disc, was measured at regular intervals over 30 days using an Orion ion-selective electrode connected to an ion analyser.Results. At 30 days, for both banded tooth and disc models, the mean cumulative fluoride release was greatest from 3M-Multicure followed by Ketac-Cem, which in turn released more fluoride than Ultra Band-Lok. These differences were all significant (p<0.05). Despite having the same mean cement weight, the banded tooth model for Ketac-Cem and 3M-Multicure released approximately 3-4 times more cumulative fluoride than the disc model after 30 days (p<001). For Ultra Band-Lok, both models released comparable levels of fluoride (p>0.05).Conclusions. Cement type, specimen geometry and surface area appear to influence significantly fluoride release characteristics.     

An ex vivo investigation into the fluoride release and absorption profiles of three orthodontic adhesives.

Prevention of peri-bracket decalcification is essentially mediated by effective oral hygiene, which is patient dependent. The potential to compensate for poor oral hygiene may be through the release of free fluoride ions from direct bonding agents. It is well established that glass ionomer cements (GICs) release free fluoride ions which may be replenished by exposure to fluoride containing solutions. The aim of this ex vivo study was to compare the fluoride release and absorption profiles of a recently developed low fusion, monophase GIC, Limerick glass, with two materials in common clinical use, namely, Fuji-Ortho L.C. and Concise. Ten test specimens of each material were fabricated and stored in deionized water at 37 degrees C. The concentration of fluoride release was measured daily for the first 7 days after immersion and then weekly for 5 weeks. On day 42 the test specimens were recharged in 2 per cent sodium fluoride solution and fluoride release was measured initially after 24 hours and then every 48 hours. The recharge regimen was repeated for 3 weeks. Both Limerick glass and Fuji-Ortho L.C. demonstrated the characteristic fluoride release pattern of GIC with a rapid elution of fluoride after the first 24 hours followed by a more gradual release profile over the following 2 weeks. Fuji-Ortho L.C. released the greatest quantity of fluoride but the release profile of Limerick glass was more sustained. Concise released negligible amounts of fluoride. Limerick glass and Fuji-Ortho L.C. showed an increase (P < 0.01) in fluoride release following exposure to 2 per cent sodium fluoride that decreased both with time and subsequent exposures to fluoride supplement.     

Linear regression modeling to compare fluoride release profiles of various restorative materials.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the released fluoride profiles of various restorative materials by using linear regression analysis. METHODS: Specimens were prepared using a cylindrical Teflon mold with a height of 2 mm and a radius of 8 mm. After being prepared, specimens were immediately placed into artificial saliva which was replaced at various times during 6 weeks. These released intrinsic fluoride amounts were measured by using an ion selective electrode. Then, data obtained cumulatively were statistically analyzed, and the released profiles were compared. RESULTS: It was observed that the materials released fluoride at different levels of concentration and the largest fluoride release was obtained from the conventional glass ionomer cement. This was followed by resin modified glass ionomer cement, polyacid modified composite resin, and fluoride releasing composite resin, respectively. Although the released fluoride amounts of the materials were different, their release profiles were found to be similar in that the release was initially fast and then it became steady as time passed. SIGNIFICANCE: The statistical modeling of the release profiles helps to compare the fluoride release behavior of materials and also to predict fluoride release amounts for the future. In literature, for these purposes, separate nonlinear statistical models have extensively been utilized. However, the single linear statistical modeling approach has numerous advantages such as providing estimators having good statistical properties, exact results, precise inference and simplicity in calculation. Therefore, this study was conducted to introduce the use of single linear regression modeling to compare release profiles statistically.     

不同品牌玻璃离子水门汀氟释放的比较

目的：离体比较临床用不同品牌及固化方式的玻璃离子水门汀（ＧＩＣ）氟释放情况，为临床使用含氟充填材料防龋提供理论依据。方法：４种ＧＩＣ，分别为Ｓｈｏｆｕ，青浦，Ｃｈｅｍｆｉｌ３种化学固化型和ＶｉｔｒｅｍｅｒＴＭ光固化型ＧＩＣ，离子选择电极法测量材料在去离子水中氟释放量。结果：所有测试材料在实验期间都能在去离子水中持续释放氟，ＶｉｔｅｒｍｅｒＴＭ、Ｓｈｏｆｕ、Ｃｈｅｍｆｉｌ和青浦分别为（２１．１１±９．７６）μｇ、（８．０８±４．４３）μｇ、（６．５２±３．２８）μｇ，（１７．６７±６．９３）μｇ（Ｐ＜０．０１）。结论：不同品牌及固化方式的ＧＩＣ氟释放能力不同，树脂基因引入玻璃离子水门汀并不影响其氟释放能力。     

Fluoride release from restorative materials and a luting cement

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: In addition to conventional glass ionomers, a considerable number of different types of materials have been formulated to release fluoride. Variation in composition results in quantitative differences in the amount of fluoride release by these materials. PURPOSE: This study evaluated and compared fluoride release in distilled water from different types of restorative materials and a luting cement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fluoride release from 4 glass ionomer formulation restorative materials (Miracle-Mix, Fuji ionomer type III, Fuji II LC improved, and Ketac-Silver), a luting cement (Ketac Cem), a compomer (Compoglass Flow), 2 sealants (Fissurit F, Helioseal F), and a composite resin (Tetric) was evaluated at time intervals of 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours and 2, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, and 112 days. Seven disks of each material were made and stored for equilibration in double distilled water at 37 degrees C for the time of each measurement. The equilibrated solution was analyzed for fluoride with a TISAB and an ion-specific combination electrode (ORION 960900) connected to an expandable ion analyzer (Crison micropH 2002). Data were analyzed by means of univariate analysis of variance, the Dunnett C post hoc test, and repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: Fluoride was released from all the evaluated materials, with considerable variation in the rate of release but a similar pattern. Among the materials tested, fluoride release from glass ionomer formulations was greater than that from composite resin formulations; the rank of decreasing order was as follows: Miracle Mix > Fuji III, Ketac Cem > Fuji II LC > Ketac Silver, Compoglass F > Fissurit F, Helioseal F > Tetric (> indicates statistical significance; P< .05). CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of this study, glass ionomer formulations and the compomer released more fluoride than the sealants and the composite resin tested.     

Fluoride release, weight loss and erosive wear of modern aesthetic restoratives.

OBJECTIVE: In this investigation, the in vitro sustained fluoride release, weight loss and erosive wear of three conventional glass ionomer cements (Fuji IX, ChemFil Superior, Ketac-Silver), three resin-modified glass ionomer cements (Fuji II LC, Vitremer, Photac-Fil), a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract), and a resin composite control material (Z100) were compared. METHODS: The amounts of fluoride released and weight changes were measured for 12 weeks using a fluoride electrode with TISAB III buffer. After 12 weeks, the specimens were recharged with fluoride using 2 mL of 1.23% APF gel. The recharged specimens were assessed for the amounts of fluoride released and weight changes over another 12 weeks. At the end of the experiment, the specimens were examined with SEM and surface profilometry. RESULTS: All materials, with the exception of Z100, showed the highest initial fluoride release rates during the first 2 days, dropping quickly over 2 weeks and becoming largely stabilised after 5 weeks, in an exponential mode. The recharging of the specimens with APF gel caused a large increase in the amounts of fluoride released during the first 2 days only. Analyses for all cements showed strong correlations between mean weight loss and cumulative fluoride release over a 5-week period following the application of the APF gel. SEM and surface profilometry found that roughness increased from the polyacid-modified resin composite to the conventional glass ionomer cements. CONCLUSIONS: APF gel caused erosive wear of the glass ionomer cements especially, and the wear correlated well with the weight losses. To minimise surface erosion, APF gel should not be used on these cements, especially as the recharging effects are transitory.