Abstract:dhesive systems associated to resin-modified glass ionomer cements are employed for the achievement of a higher bond strength to dentin. Despite this benefit, other properties should not be damaged. This study aimed at evaluating the short-time fluoride release of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement coated with two one-bottle adhesive systems in a pH cycling system. Four combinations were investigated: G1: Vitremer (V); G2: Vitremer + Primer (VP); G3: Vitremer + Single Bond (VSB) and G4: Vitremer + Prime & B… Show more
“…This could be attributed to the composition of this cement type; Table (1), as the substitution of Ca2+ with Sr2+ ions improved the fluoride release rate due to faster dissociation of strontium fluoride complex (SrF2) than calcium fluoride complex (CaF2) (29). However, the pattern of fluoride release from the uncoated RMGIC is in line with other investigation (27), that recorded an initial burst release followed by a slow rate of release. This might be referred to the acid-base reaction that takes place at the first 24 hours and results in fluoride ions dissociation.…”
Section: Results: Fluoride Releasesupporting
confidence: 80%
“…It was suggested that the coats prevented the dissolution of the superficial layer of immature GIC. In addition,) the surface coat could represent a barrier that restrict but not eliminate the fluoride release (27).…”
Objective: Evaluate the effect of nano-filled coating on fluoride release/recharging ability of Equia forte Fil and Fuji II LC glass ionomer cements in comparison to commonly used surface coatings; universal adhesive and petroleum jelly. Methodology: 24 disc-shaped samples for each group were prepared with glass hybrid (Group I) and resinmodified glass ionomer cement (Group II). Each group was divided into four subgroups; 1: Control, 2: Equia Forte Coat, 3: Single bond Universal and 4: Petroleum jelly. Fluoride ions released was measured at different time intervals using fluoride-specific ion-electrode. After 63 days, samples were immersed in sodium-fluoride gel and fluoride recharge capability was evaluated. Results: Application of coats on glass hybrid resulted in significant decrease in fluoride ions release at all tested time intervals, in comparison to control group (p<0.0001). The least ions release was recorded in nano-filled coat and universal adhesive. For RMGIC, delay in burst release was observed after coating, with the least fluoride release recorded in nano-filled coated subgroup. All groups showed the ability to recharge with NaF gel and re-release again. Conclusions: 1. Application of coatings has dramatic reducing effect on fluoride ions release/recharging ability. 2. Nano-filled coating and universal adhesive have a hindering influence on fluoride ions release more than petroleum jelly.3. The effect of nano-filled coating is more evident on glass hybrid than on resin-modified glass ionomer cement. 4. Application of coatings on glass hybrid and RMGIC delayed the burst release but maintained the fluoride release ability of GICs at constant level.
“…This could be attributed to the composition of this cement type; Table (1), as the substitution of Ca2+ with Sr2+ ions improved the fluoride release rate due to faster dissociation of strontium fluoride complex (SrF2) than calcium fluoride complex (CaF2) (29). However, the pattern of fluoride release from the uncoated RMGIC is in line with other investigation (27), that recorded an initial burst release followed by a slow rate of release. This might be referred to the acid-base reaction that takes place at the first 24 hours and results in fluoride ions dissociation.…”
Section: Results: Fluoride Releasesupporting
confidence: 80%
“…It was suggested that the coats prevented the dissolution of the superficial layer of immature GIC. In addition,) the surface coat could represent a barrier that restrict but not eliminate the fluoride release (27).…”
Objective: Evaluate the effect of nano-filled coating on fluoride release/recharging ability of Equia forte Fil and Fuji II LC glass ionomer cements in comparison to commonly used surface coatings; universal adhesive and petroleum jelly. Methodology: 24 disc-shaped samples for each group were prepared with glass hybrid (Group I) and resinmodified glass ionomer cement (Group II). Each group was divided into four subgroups; 1: Control, 2: Equia Forte Coat, 3: Single bond Universal and 4: Petroleum jelly. Fluoride ions released was measured at different time intervals using fluoride-specific ion-electrode. After 63 days, samples were immersed in sodium-fluoride gel and fluoride recharge capability was evaluated. Results: Application of coats on glass hybrid resulted in significant decrease in fluoride ions release at all tested time intervals, in comparison to control group (p<0.0001). The least ions release was recorded in nano-filled coat and universal adhesive. For RMGIC, delay in burst release was observed after coating, with the least fluoride release recorded in nano-filled coated subgroup. All groups showed the ability to recharge with NaF gel and re-release again. Conclusions: 1. Application of coatings has dramatic reducing effect on fluoride ions release/recharging ability. 2. Nano-filled coating and universal adhesive have a hindering influence on fluoride ions release more than petroleum jelly.3. The effect of nano-filled coating is more evident on glass hybrid than on resin-modified glass ionomer cement. 4. Application of coatings on glass hybrid and RMGIC delayed the burst release but maintained the fluoride release ability of GICs at constant level.
“…This was done to ensure that the components were layered in the same order as in clinical application, i.e., that the bond component is the first layer on the restoration surface, which is overlayered with the primer component. Coating the outer specimen surfaces with an adhesive was chosen as a feasible approach for in vitro investigation of ion release through an adhesive layer, as described in several previous studies 13 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 20 . Figure 1 Flowchart of the study design.…”
“…The effect of a resinous layer on ion release from remineralizing restorative materials has been dominantly investigated for fluoride-releasing materials, namely conventional glass ionomer cements 13 , 14 , resin-modified glass ionomers 15 , and polyacid-modified composites 16 , 17 . Within the group of resin composites, the effect has not been extensively investigated and the available data is limited on fluoride release from several outdated composites 13 , 18 , while the data for more recent materials such as giomers and alkasite is scarce 19 .…”
This study investigated the potential of adhesive coating for hindering the reactivity of ion-releasing dental restorative materials. Experimental composites were prepared by replacing 10 or 20 wt% of reinforcing fillers with two types of bioactive glass. A glass ionomer, a giomer, and an alkasite were used as representatives of commercial ion-releasing materials. Restorative material specimens were coated with an etch-and-rinse adhesive, 1-step self-etch adhesive, 2-step self-etch adhesive, or left uncoated. The specimens were immersed in a lactic acid solution and ion concentrations were measured in 4 days intervals for 32 days (atomic absorption spectrometry for calcium, UV–Vis spectrometry for phosphate, ion-selective electrode for fluoride, and pH-meter for pH values). The adhesive coating reduced ion release between 0.3 and 307 times, in a significantly material- and adhesive-dependent manner. Fluoride release was most highly impaired, with the reduction of up to 307 times, followed by phosphate and calcium release, which were reduced up to 90 and 45 times, respectively. The effect of different adhesive systems was most pronounced for phosphate release, with the following rankings: uncoated ≥ 2-step self-etch adhesive ≥ 1-step self-etch adhesive ≥ etch-and-rinse adhesive. The differences among adhesives were less pronounced for calcium and fluoride. It was concluded that the resinous adhesive layer can act as a barrier for ion release and diminish the beneficial effects of remineralizing restorative materials.
“…Similar results were reported by other studies. 70,71 However, taking into consideration that increased adhesion and reduced microleakage provides better benefits clinically than the fluoride release per se. Geerts et al 72 evaluated the marginal sealing ability of different RMGI restorations (Fuji II LC): RMGI was placed on the dentin after application of either polyacrylic acid or self-etch adhesive bonding systems.…”
Objective
The aim of this paper was to review the current literature on cavity bases while focusing on the role of zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) and resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGI) as cavity bases.
Materials and Methods
A thorough literature search between 1970 and 2020 was done using Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. The keywords of the search strategy were as below: cavity liners and bases, pulp protection, zinc oxide eugenol, and resin-modified glass ionomer. No specific inclusion or exclusion criteria were applied as to what articles would be included in this review.
Conclusion
This review emphasizes that the available literature provides very little evidence to support the routine use of a base under amalgam or composite restorations. This review favors the adoption of “no more lining or bases” in shallow and moderate cavity preparations. However, an exception might be a “protective base” of RMGI following the application of calcium hydroxide (CH) liners in deep cavities. Bonded RMGIs are suitable cavity base materials and should always replace zinc oxide eugenol bases in daily practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
