Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials

Garoushi, Sufyan; Vallittu, Pekka K.; Lassila, Lippo

doi:10.4012/dmj.2017-161

Cited by 97 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the null hypothesis, that there is no significant effect of ionizing radiation from high energy X-ray on the properties of fluoride-releasing restorative materials, was partially rejected. The use of fluoride-releasing restorative materials has gradually increased because of the inhibitory effects of fluoride on caries 5,11,13 while several laboratory studies have been also performed to evaluate the amount of fluoride release from the materials. 13,14,15,16,27 It has been reported that the higher fluoride release of GICs could provide higher antibacterial activity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of fluoride-releasing restorative materials has gradually increased because of the inhibitory effects of fluoride on caries 5,11,13 while several laboratory studies have been also performed to evaluate the amount of fluoride release from the materials. 13,14,15,16,27 It has been reported that the higher fluoride release of GICs could provide higher antibacterial activity. 15,17 The fluoride release of restorative materials differs based on various factors such as material type, chemical composition, powder-liquid ratio used during material preparation, mixing method, surface area of material exposed to the environment, storage medium, pH of the environment or storage medium, surface treatment, and finishing procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15,17 The fluoride release of restorative materials differs based on various factors such as material type, chemical composition, powder-liquid ratio used during material preparation, mixing method, surface area of material exposed to the environment, storage medium, pH of the environment or storage medium, surface treatment, and finishing procedures. 13,28 The ionizing radiation may be one of these factors. But, in the present study, the ionizing radiation significantly increased the amount of fluoride released from only Zirconomer and Amalgomer CR at certain test periods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 On the other hand, the GICs have certain drawbacks, such as early water sensitivity and low mechanical strengths; therefore, the use of GICs as direct restorative materials in stress-bearing areas is contraindicated. 13,14 Several studies have been done to overcome the disadvantage of low mechanical properties. As a result, high viscosity GIC, ceramic reinforced GIC, zirconia reinforced GIC, and calcium fluorapatite nanocrystals-reinforced GIC (Glass carbomer) have been developed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Giomer is a hybridized material of GIC and composite resin, containing surface pre-reacted glass ionomer (S-PRG) filler particles within a resin matrix. 13,18 Fu r t h e r m o r e, i t h a s b e e n s t a t e d t h a t ionizing radiation could affect the properties of restorative materials. 7,10 The effects of ionizing radiation on properties of restorative materials as surface roughness 19,20 , flexural strength 19,21,22 , microhardness, 19,20,22 and water sorption 23 have been evaluated in several studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The effect of ionizing radiation on properties of fluoride-releasing restorative materials

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of ionizing radiation from high energy X-ray on fluoride release, surface roughness, flexural strength, and surface chemical composition of the materials. The study groups comprised five different restorative materials: Beautifil II, GCP Glass Fill, Amalgomer CR, Zirconomer, and Fuji IX GP. Twenty disk-shaped specimens (8x2 mm) for fluoride release and 20 bar-shaped specimens (25 x 2x 2 mm) for flexural strength were prepared from each material. Each material group was divided into two subgroups: irradiated (IR) and non-irradiated (Non-IR). The specimens from IR groups were irradiated with 1.8 Gy/day for 39 days (total IR = 70.2 Gy). The amount of fluoride released into deionized water was measured using a fluoride ion-selective electrode and ion analyzer after 24 hours and on days 2, 3, 7, 15, 21, 28, 35, and 39 (n = 10). The flexural strength was evaluated using the three-point bending test (n = 10). After the period of measurement of fluoride release, seven specimens (n = 7) from each group were randomly selected to evaluate surface roughness using AFM and one specimen was randomly selected for the SEM and EDS analyses. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p = 0.05). The irradiation significantly increased fluoride release and surface roughness for Amalgomer CR and Zirconomer groups (p < 0.05). No significant change in flexural strength of the materials was observed after irradiation (p > 0.05). The ionizing radiation altered the amount of fluoride release and surface roughness of only Amalgomer CR and Zirconomer. The effect could be related to the chemical compositions of materials.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The effect of ionizing radiation on properties of fluoride-releasing restorative materials

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Surface roughness and filler particles characterization of resin‐based composites

Ruivo

Pacheco

Sebold

et al. 2019

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness (Ra), and the morphology and composition of filler particles of different composites submitted to toothbrushing and water storage. Disc‐shaped specimens (15 mm × 2 mm) were made from five composites: two conventional (Z100™, and Filtek™ Supreme Ultra Universal, 3M), one “quick‐cure” (Estelite ∑ Quick, Tokuyama), one fluoride‐releasing (Beautiful II, Shofu), and one self‐adhering (Vertise Flow, Kerr) composite. Samples were finished/polished using aluminum oxide discs (Sof‐Lex, 3M), and their surfaces were analyzed by profilometry (n = 5) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM; n = 3) at 1 week and after 30,000 toothbrushing cycles and 6‐month water storage. Ra data were analyzed by two‐way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Filler particles morphology and composition were analyzed by SEM and X‐ray dispersive energy spectroscopy, respectively. Finishing/polishing resulted in similar Ra for all the composites, while toothbrushing and water storage increased the Ra of all the tested materials, also changing their surface morphology. Beautifil II and Vertise Flow presented the highest Ra after toothbrushing and water storage. Filler particles were mainly composed of silicon, zirconium, aluminum, barium, and ytterbium. Size and morphology of fillers, and composition of the tested composites influenced their Ra when samples were submitted to toothbrushing and water storage.

show abstract

Dental composite resin: a review of major mechanical properties, measurements and its influencing factors

Suryawanshi

2022

Materialwissenschaft Werkst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, there is a large variety of dental restorative composite materials on the market, making it difficult to select the proper one. The mechanical properties of various dental materials determine how long they endure when used in the mouth. On the other hand, the therapeutic efficiency of these restorative materials cannot be predicted solely based on their mechanical properties. These features, on the other hand, help with the examination of the impact of changes in their composition. As a consequence, these tests can help the clinician choose the right material. The various mechanical properties can be investigated using a variety of laboratory experiments. The common laboratory tests used to evaluate the mechanical characteristics, composition, and classification of dental composite materials, as well as the factors that influence mechanical qualities, are discussed in this study.

show abstract

Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials

Cited by 97 publications

References 30 publications

The effect of ionizing radiation on properties of fluoride-releasing restorative materials

The effect of ionizing radiation on properties of fluoride-releasing restorative materials

Surface roughness and filler particles characterization of resin‐based composites

Dental composite resin: a review of major mechanical properties, measurements and its influencing factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About