The interaction of polyacid-modified composite resins ("compomers") with aqueous fluoride solutions

Abstract

Objective:The aim of this study was to investigate how the release of fluoride from two compomers and a fluoridated composite resin was affected by exposure to KF solution.Material and Methods:Two compomers (Dyract AP and Compoglass F) and one fluoridated composite (Wave) were prepared as discs (6 mm diameter and 2 mm thick), curing with a standard dental lamp. They were then stored in either water or 0.5% KF for 1 week, followed by placement in water for periods of 1 week up to 5 weeks total. Fluoride was determined with and without TISAB (to allow complexed and decomplexed fluoride to be determined), and other ion release (Na, Ca, Al, Si, P) was determined by ICP-OES.Results:Specimens were found not to take up fluoride from 100 ppm KF solution in 24 h, but to release additional fluoride when stored for up to five weeks. Compomers released more fluoride cumulatively following exposure to KF solution (p<0.001), all of which was decomplexed, though initial (1 week) values were not statistically significant for Dyract AP. Other ions showed no variations in release over 1 week, regardless of whether the specimens were exposed to KF. Unlike the compomers, Wave showed no change in fluoride release as a result of exposure to KF.Conclusions:Compomers are affected by KF solution, and release more fluoride (but not other ions) after exposure than if stored in water.

Fluoride Release and Rerelease After Recharging of Two Hybrid Resin Restorations in Primary Teeth. “A Comparative in Vitro Study”.

“…The results obtained in the present study showed that both Giomer and Compomer were able to be recharged with topical fluoride with no statistically significant difference between them. These findings were on agreement with the studies performed by Rohani et al in 2009 (35) and Dhull et al in 2011 (16). The latter found that increasing fluoride exposure significantly increased fluoride release from Giomer and Compomer.…”

Effect of adhesive application on the shear bond strength of flowable composite resins and APC plus to orthodontic molar tubes

“…This may be due to the presence of other variables that can influence the SBS, such as the retention of the tube base and the enamel pretreatment [3,4]. On the other hand, W is more fluid than TF and S that have fluoride in its composition [15]. Flowable resins can flow easily onto a tube base and into an etched tooth structure, and thus an enhanced level of mechanical retention of W is expected when compared with the other two flowable composites [15,16], as W displayed a well-defined resin penetration into the demineralized enamel and showed high 'humectancy' with all of the adhesive remaining on the enamel surface after debonding of the tube ( Figure 5(A)-(C)).…”

“…Thus, if flowable composites and the APC could guarantee clinically acceptable bond strength for acid-etched enamel, they would provide an important savings in chair-side time by reducing the number of intermediate steps in tube-bonding procedures. Along with the clinical use of flowable composites and the APC, several studies have been published regarding their use for orthodontic bracket bonding [3][4][5][6]15]. However, no previous research had focused on the bond strength of flowable composites and the APC Plus when used for bonding orthodontic tubes to human enamel with and without the application of an intermediate adhesive agent.…”