Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part I: in vitro investigations

PURPOSE: To evaluate different resin-based composites using a variety of in vitro investigation methods to predict their clinical behavior. METHODS: Materials selected for this study were Heliomolar radiopaque (microfilled), Tetric Ceram, Pertac II (minifilled hybrids), Ariston pHc (ion releasing hybrid), and Solitaire I (hybrid with porous fillers). The evaluated in vitro criteria were three-body wear according to the ACTA method, microtensile bond strengths to enamel and dentin, flexural strength (four-point bending strength), flexural fatigue behavior (flexural fatigue limit), and calcium ion release (for Ariston pHc). RESULTS: Concerning wear resistance, Ariston pHc (20.5 microm after 200,000 cycles) was inferior to the other materials (13.7-15.9 microm). Microtensile bond strengths to dentin were similar for Heliomolar (32.0 MPa), Tetric Ceram (30.4 MPa; both bonded with Syntac Classic), and Pertac II (30.8 MPa; bonded with EBS Multi) being above Solitaire I (22.5 MPa; bonded with Solidbond) being above Ariston pHc (13.2 MPa; bonded with Ariston Liner). Enamel bond strengths for Heliomolar (40.0 MPa), Tetric Ceram (36.5 MPa), and Pertac II (38.9 MPa) were significantly higher than for Solitaire I (26.6 MPa) which was above Ariston pHc (7.2 MPa). Heliomolar, Tetric Ceram, and Pertac II revealed higher micro-TBS to enamel than to dentin, Ariston showed the contrary, and Solitare exhibited no difference between enamel and dentin micro-TBS. Solitaire I exhibited a lower initial flexural strength than the other materials, the computed fatigue strength of the material even dropped to the level of glass ionomer cements (17.9 MPa). Long-term calcium release data for Ariston exhibited a continuously high calcium release becoming lower at the end of the observation beyond 21 months.     

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.     

Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical durability of flowable resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 190 restorations were placed in 61 children, age in the range of 5-11 years. The restoratives, Tetric Flow, in combination with the adhesives, Excite or Prompt-L-Pop and Vitremer, were used in class II cavities in primary molars. An intra-individual study design was used and the restorations were evaluated by modified USPHS criteria over a 2-year period. RESULTS: 146 of the restorations could be evaluated at 2 years. The cumulative failure rate was 10.6% for Vitremer and 13.6% for Tetric Flow. No statistically significant differences were found in failure rates between different materials or between bonding systems. The main cause of failure for Tetric Flow was secondary caries and for Vitremer wear and dissolution. CONCLUSIONS: Vitremer and Tetric Flow showed no significant difference concerning clinical durability at 2 years when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. Both materials demonstrated acceptable clinical results.     

Initial in situ secondary caries formation: effect of various fluoride-containing restorative materials

This study evaluated the effects of various restorative materials (Ariston pHc; Dyract; Vitremer; Tetric Ceram; Compoglass F, F2000; Hytac and Ketac Molar) on initial secondary caries formation in situ. Eighty-eight enamel slabs from sound human molars were sterilized (ethylene dioxide) and embedded in epoxy resin. Standardized tooth preparations were filled with the various restorative materials according to manufacturers' recommendations. One specimen from each group was inserted into one of two buccal aspects of an intraoral appliance worn by 11 volunteers for four weeks, day and night. Oral hygiene was performed without additional fluoride application. During meals and oral hygiene procedures, the appliances were stored in sucrose solution (10%). After in situ exposure, the samples were prepared for microradiographic assessment. Mineral content and lesion depth were evaluated by a dedicated software package (TMR 1.24). Lesion depth and mineral loss of the carious lesions close to Ariston pHc was significantly lower when compared to distant parts of the same lesions (p < 0.05; t-test, Bonferroni-Holm correction). All other materials containing fluoride showed no caries protective effect on surrounding enamel (p > 0.05; t-test, Bonferroni-Holm correction). A hydroxyl-, calcium- and fluoride-containing restorative material hampers demineralization next to the restoration, whereas, fluoride release of various fluoride-containing restorative materials does not affect demineralization of adjacent enamel in situ.     

Fluoride release from restorative materials coated with an adhesive

The retention of both fluoride resins and resin-modified glass ionomer cements to dental tissues can be improved by the association of an adhesive system which promotes the bonding between the resin component and dentin, forming a hybrid layer. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate if the presence of the adhesive, being part of the hybrid layer composition, interfered with the fluoride released to tooth tissues. The restorative materials studied were: Vitremer (3M), Heliomolar (Vivadent) and Z100 (3M) using an adhesive application (Scotch Bond MultiPurpose Plus--3M). Ten discs of each material were prepared: 5 were covered with the adhesive and 5 were not. The discs were immersed in individual flasks containing artificial saliva which was changed daily. Fluoride release was measured at days 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 by a fluoride combined electrode (9609 BN--Orion) coupled to an ion analyzer (SA-720 Procyon). One-way ANOVA and the Student-Newman-Keuls test were applied to compare the materials. The results showed that the use of a dental adhesive significantly decreased the fluoride release of Vitremer and reduced the fluoride release of Heliomolar to undetectable levels with the methodology used.     

FLUORIDE RELEASE OF SIX RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN WATER AND pH-CYCLING SOLUTIONS

The fluoride release of restorative materials in deionized water has been the subject of many studies, but the behavior of these materials under conditions of acid challenge that simulates the oral cavity, needs to be further explored. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the fluoride release of restorative materials in two storage protocols: deionized water and pH- cycling system (demineralizing solution-pH 4.3 and remineralizing solution-pH 7.0) for 15 days. Eight disks of each material (Vitremer™-positive control, Dyract AP, Ariston pHc, Definite®, Tetric®Ceram and Z100-negative control) were prepared (11.0 mm x 1.5 mm) and suspended individually in 4.0 mL of each solution, which were daily changed. Daily fluoride release was analyzed with an ion specific electrode (Orion 9609) by the direct method or after HMDS-facilitated diffusion, following 1, 7 and 15 days. The values obtained were converted into μgF/mm² and the data analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey''s test (p< 0.05). The results showed that all materials released more fluoride in the pH-cycling system, except for Ariston pHc which maintained a constant release during the experiment. The highest fluoride release was presented by the positive control, Vitremer™ in pH- cycling and by Ariston pHc, in deionized water. The negative control Z100 and the resins Definite® and Tetric®Ceram did not present statistically significant differences.     

In vitro fluoride release from aesthetic restorative materials following recharging with APF gel

In this in vitro study, the fluoride ion release from three more-viscous conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs)--ChemFlex, Fuji IX GP, Ionofil Molar--four polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers)--Dyract AP, Compoglass F, Freedom, F2000--and a hybrid resin composite--Ariston pHc--were compared. The amounts of fluoride release from 3 x 2.7 mm specimens were measured over six weeks using a fluoride ion-selective electrode. After six weeks, the specimens were recharged with 2 ml of 1.23 per cent acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) gel for four minutes. The recharged specimens were then assessed for the amounts of fluoride release over another six weeks. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way and repeated measures ANOVA. The GICs and Compoglass F showed significantly higher initial fluoride release rates during the first two days (p < 0.05). After the first two days, fluoride release rates from all materials dropped quickly and became essentially stabilized within three-five weeks, in an exponential mode. The recharging of the specimens with APF gel caused a brief, but significant, increase in fluoride release for all materials (p < 0.05), before decreasing to previous comparable rates. Compoglass F released relatively more fluoride, and Ariston pHc relatively less, after APF gel application than before. The lowest total amounts over the study were released by Dyract AP and Freedom. The newer compomers, as well as the newer more-viscous GICs, appear to act as fluoride reservoirs to varying extents.     

Fluoride release from some dental materials in different solutions.

Most of the data reported on release of fluoride from dental materials are based upon measurements made in deionized water and artificial saliva, which do not simulate the dynamics of caries development. So, the purpose of this study was to determine the level of fluoride released from different restorative materials in storage solutions, considering the caries process (pH-cycling). Six cylindrical samples of each material (Chelon-Fil, Dyract, Variglass, Vitremer, and Tetric) were prepared and suspended individually in 2.0 mL of each studied solution. The studied media were deionized water, artificial saliva, and solutions for pH-cycling (demineralizing solution--pH 4.3 and remineralizing solution--pH 7.0). All solutions were changed daily over 15 days. Fluoride release was determined after buffering the solutions with an equal volume of TISAB. The fluoride release was higher in pH-cycling than in the other solutions (P < 0.05), and changes of the rank order of fluoride release from the studied materials occurred when the different media were considered (P < 0.05). The data suggest that the comparison of fluoride released from dental materials is dependent on the medium used in the evaluation.     

Fluoride release from esthetic restorative materials with and without adhesive.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the effect of surface coating containing fluoride on patterns and amounts of fluoride release from 5 esthetic restorative materials. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Twelve cylinders of each material were prepared in a plexiglass mold. The experimental groups (n = 6) were coated with 1 layer of fluoridated adhesive resin, Prompt L-Pop, while the control groups (n = 6) remained uncoated. Fluoride release into deionized water was measured on days 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 using an ion analyzer. Results were evaluated statistically using repeated measure analysis of variance and Duncan test. RESULTS: In the uncoated materials, the highest fluoride-releasing material was a resin composite Ariston pHc (140.468 +/- 9.80) followed by Photac-fil (101.200 +/- 5.56), Ketac-fil (91.098 + 4.69), Hytac Aplitip (5.122 +/- 1.00), and Ecusit (0.310 +/- 0.18). Material-coating interaction was found to be significant, but the effect of surface coating was different for each material. Among the coated materials, conventional glass-ionomer cement Ketac-fil released the highest amount of fluoride (93.326 +/- 10.86), followed by Photac-fil (83.666 +/- 4.72), Ariston pHc (53.862 +/- 7.90), Hytac Aplitip (14.634 +/- 2.35), and Ecusit (1.355 +/- 0.29). CONCLUSION: Application of fluoridated adhesive affected fluoride release from each material in varying magnitudes.     

Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation

Objective. To evaluate the clinical durability of flowable resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. Material and Methods. A total of 190 restorations were placed in 61 children, age in the range of 5–11 years. The restoratives, Tetric Flow, in combination with the adhesives, Excite or Prompt-L-Pop and Vitremer, were used in class II cavities in primary molars. An intra-individual study design was used and the restorations were evaluated by modified USPHS criteria over a 2-year period. Results. 146 of the restorations could be evaluated at 2 years. The cumulative failure rate was 10.6% for Vitremer and 13.6% for Tetric Flow. No statistically significant differences were found in failure rates between different materials or between bonding systems. The main cause of failure for Tetric Flow was secondary caries and for Vitremer wear and dissolution. Conclusions. Vitremer and Tetric Flow showed no significant difference concerning clinical durability at 2 years when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. Both materials demonstrated acceptable clinical results.     

Fluoride release and uptake by four new fluoride releasing restorative materials

The present study compared the initial fluoride release and release following refluoridation of a conventional glass-ionomer Ketac-Molar (ESPE), a resin-modified glass-ionomer, Vitremer (3M), and two compomers F-2000 (3M) and Hytac (ESPE). Fifteen test specimens were prepared for each brand and immersed in deionized water. The fluoride released was measured every 2 days for 22 days. Refluoridation of the test specimens was done with solutions of 0.02, 0.04 and 0.2% NaF for 5 min on days 22, 30, 38 and 46. The fluoride released from recharged specimens was measured every 2 days until day 54. The fluoride release was highest during the first days after preparation, after which it decreased sharply and then more slowly. The four materials became 'recharged' with fluoride following repeated fluoride exposure in solution, the 0.2% solution being the most effective. From a clinical point of view, the results from this study imply that all the restorative materials tested may act as intra-oral devices for the controlled slow release of fluoride at sites at risk of recurrent caries. Fluoride release and uptake by four new fluoride releasing restorative materials.     

Effects of APF gel on the physical structure of compomers and glass ionomer cements

This study assessed the effect of an acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) gel on the surfaces of eight modern esthetic restorative materials. Five specimens each of three high powder: liquid ratio conventional glass ionomer cements (ChemFlex, Fuji IX GP, Ionofil Molar), four polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) (Compoglass F, Dyract AP, Freedom, F2000) and an alkaline glass filled resin composite (Ariston pHc) were prepared and immersed at 37 degrees C in 2 mL of artificial saliva for six weeks. The aged specimens were then coated with 1.23% APF gel for four minutes, rinsed and again immersed in artificial saliva for another six weeks. The immersed, fresh specimens for each material were then examined with SEM and surface profilometry. After APF gel application, mean surface roughness (Ra) measurements and SEMs showed that roughness increased significantly, generally from the resin composite and compomers to the conventional glass ionomer cements (p < 0.05).     

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.     

Antibacterial activity of restorative dental biomaterials in vitro

This study investigated the antibacterial effects against Streptococcus mutans of a fine-hybrid resin composite (FH-RC; Tetric ceram), an ion-releasing resin composite (Ariston pHc), a self-curing glass ionomer cement (SC-GIC; Ketac-Molar), a resin-modified GIC (RM-GIC; Photac-Fil), and a zinc oxide eugenol cement (ZOE; IRM). In a novel assay, bacterial suspensions were placed into narrow 20-microl conical cavities within the materials. After 0, 4, 8, 24, 48 h and 1 week of incubation, the suspensions were removed from the restoratives and the numbers of viable bacteria were determined. After incubation periods of 8 h or more, all restorative materials except the FH-RC showed significant growth inhibition when compared with controls. The strongest antibacterial activity was observed with ZOE. The inhibitory effect of Ariston pHc was similar to that of the SC-GIC and the RM-GIC. In the second assay, growth inhibition was evaluated in liquid cultures by incubating eluates of the materials with suspensions of S. mutans. Bacterial growth was determined up to 6 h by measuring absorption at 600 nm. The most marked inhibitory effect was again observed with ZOE. The SC-GIC caused a significant inhibition at all time intervals but the FH-RC, the RM-GIC and Ariston pHc exhibited no significant antibacterial effects. It is recommended to employ more than one method for assessing the antibacterial potential of restorative materials. Long-term clinical trials are necessary to determine whether the antimicrobial effects of dental materials are able to reduce the risk of secondary caries formation.     

Fluoride release from a new glass-ionomer cement

This study compared the amount and pattern of fluoride release from a new glass-ionomer-based material (nano-ionomer) with other restorative materials and correlated the surface area to volume of nano-sized filler with its capacity to release fluoride in the powder, more quickly increasing the fluoride. The materials evaluated were a nano-ionomer (Ketac N 100), a conventional glass-ionomer cement (GC Fuji II), a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GC Fuji II LC), a compomer (Dyract F) and a fluoride-releasing resin composite (Tetric N Flow). A resin composite (Synergy Flow) served as the control. Ten specimens were fabricated from each of these materials using a customized metal mold. The fluoride release was measured every 24 hours for the first seven days, and on days 14, 21 and 28, a combination fluoride ion—selective electrode connected to an ion analyzer. The data was analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test (p=0.05). An initial fluoride “burst effect” was seen with all of the materials, except for the control and compomer. The conventional glass-ionomer cement showed the highest fluoride release on the first three days. The nano-ionomer showed the maximum release of fluoride for the remaining days. A low constant level of fluoride release was seen from the compomer and fluoride-releasing resin composite throughout the study period.     

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.     

Cytotoxicity evaluation of dental resin composites and their flowable derivatives

The release of components from dental composite into surrounding tissue may cause an adverse tissue reaction. Thus, this study investigated the cytotoxicity of three types of dental composites with their flowable derivatives and determined the compounds released from these materials by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis. Fifteen specimens from each composite (Admira, Z250, Tetric Ceram) with fifteen of their flowables (Admira Flow, Tetric Flow, Feltik Flow) were prepared in the form of discs and divided into two groups of 10 and 5 for each material. The first group (10 discs) was used to evaluate the cytotoxicity of the material on balb/c 3T3 fibroblasts by measuring cellular metabolic activity (3{4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl}-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide [MTT] assay) relative to Teflon controls, while the second group (5 discs) was used to determine the leached components from each material into culture medium by HPLC analysis. The results revealed that Z250 and Tetric Ceram were less cytotoxic than their flowable derivatives. However, the ormocer, Admira, was significantly more cytotoxic than Admira Flow. Among the standard composites, Tetric Ceram was the least cytotoxic and Admira the most. Furthermore, Tetric flow was the most cytotoxic and Admira flow was significantly the least cytotoxic among the flowable materials tested. HPLC analysis revealed bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate (bis-GMA) and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) in the eluates of all the materials, while urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) was present in all eluates except that of Feltik Flow. In conclusion, the flowable derivatives are more cytotoxic than the traditional composites whereas the ormocer Admira Flow is less cytotoxic than the Admira composite.     

Relative wear of flowable and highly filled composite

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: By decreasing the proportion of filler, flowable composites are easy to adapt to small cavity preparations. However, the wear resistance of flowable composites is a clinical concern, as improved wear has been related to increased filler percentage. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare wear for flowable composites and comparable heavily filled materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Wear by attrition and abrasion (microm) of microfilled flowable (Heliomolar Flow) and heavily filled microfill (Heliomolar HB) was measured and compared to a microhybrid flowable (Tetric Flow) and a heavily filled microhybrid (Tetric HB). There were 5 specimens, 2 mm thick and 15 mm in diameter, in each group. The Oregon Health Sciences University oral wear simulator was used to produce abrasive wear and attrition for all specimens. Abrasion and attrition of the substrates were measured using a profilometer. Data were subjected to a 3-way analysis of variance for the 3 main factors: composite type, filler load, and wear type (alpha=.05) RESULTS: Composite wear rates were significantly influenced (P <.01) by both the type of wear and the filler amount. Abrasive wear occurred less than wear by attrition, and the heavily filled composites experienced less wear than the flowable composites. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this in vitro study suggest that highly filled microhybrid composites may have greater wear resistance for contact-supporting posterior restorations. However, in small noncontact restorations where longevity may be dictated by abrasion, flowable microfilled resins may be adequate.     

Determination of fluoride ions released from resin-based dental materials using ion-selective electrode and ion chromatograph

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the quantities of total and free fluoride ions released from four resin-based composites containing fluoride (Heliomolar (HE), UniFil S (UF), Beautifil (BE) and Reactmer paste (RP)) and one glass ionomer cement (Ketac-Fil Plus Aplicap (KF)). METHODS: Five disk specimens of each material were prepared and the fluoride release was measured at 1, 2, 4, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days. The amounts of total and free fluoride ions released from materials were measured by using an ion-selective electrode (ISE) and ion chromatography (IC). Data were statistically analyzed using a t-test at a significant level of 0.05. RESULTS: For HE, fluoride release is undetectable using the ISE but was detected by the IC method. There were no significant differences in the free and total fluoride ions released from UF and BE (p>0.05). For RP, the free fluoride ions were significantly lower than the total fluoride ions after 4 days (p<0.05). KF showed significant difference between total and free fluoride ions at 7 and 28 days (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The nature of the fluoride incorporated into dental materials affected the amounts of free and total fluoride ions released from materials.     

Fluoride release from glass ionomer cements and resin composites coated with a dentin adhesive.

OBJECTIVES: This laboratory study compared the effect of surface coatings on patterns and amounts of fluoride released from four glass ionomer cements and two fluoride-containing resin composites. METHODS: Twelve cylinders of each material were prepared in a polyethylene mold. The experimental groups (n = 6) were coated with one layer of an adhesive resin (3M Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive), while the control groups (n = 6) remained uncoated. Cumulative fluoride release into deionized water was measured on days 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 using an ion analyzer. Total fluoride release after 28 days was analyzed for significant differences among materials using one-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The total amounts of fluoride release from the coated samples were found to be significantly less than the uncoated samples for all materials, except Solitaire. The uncoated samples released a total amount of fluoride of between 2.3 and 85.4 ppm, while the coated samples released a total amount of fluoride of between < 0.2 and 24.1 ppm. Similar patterns of fluoride release were found in coated and uncoated samples. SIGNIFICANCE: The results indicated that the application of a dentin adhesive coating did not completely prevent fluoride release from glass ionomer cements and fluoridated resin composites, although the amounts were significantly less. Clinically, it suggests that a continued release of fluoride from glass ionomer cements and fluoridated resin composites is possible after placing a thin layer of resin adhesive. The clinical significance of these findings is not known.