Fluoride Release from Restorative Materials

Basso, G.R.; Bona, Álvaro Della; Gobbi, Delton Luiz; Cecchetti, Dileta

doi:10.1590/s0103-64402011000500001

Cited by 26 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies [14][15][16][17] obtained similar results. High initial fluoride rates released by in vivo GIC contribute to eliminate remaining microorganisms of the oral cavity and to strengthen demineralized enamel and dentin [18].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…High initial fluoride rates released by in vivo GIC contribute to eliminate remaining microorganisms of the oral cavity and to strengthen demineralized enamel and dentin [18]. However, even with the decrease in fluoride release due to the reaction of these ions with the GIC matrix, the constant amount of fluoride released prevents the development of new caries sites near restoration and increases the concentration of ions in saliva [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Fluoride Release, pH and Microhardness of Glass Ionomer Cements

Cardoso¹,

Leitão²,

Neto³

et al. 2015

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate fluoride release, pH and microhardness of glass ionomer cements (GIC). Material and Methods: Four different cements: Vidrion ® R (G1), Vitro Fil ® (G2), Maxxion ® (G3) and Magic Glass ® (G4) and a composite resin (G5 -control group) comprised the sample. Thirty specimens were manufactured (10 mm x 3 mm) and stored in deionized water. Analyses were performed after 24 hours, 7 days and 28 days. The following devices were used for measurements: fluorometer, pH meter and microhardness tester. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, Friedman and Wilcoxon tests (α = 0.05) using the SPSS ® software (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 17. Results: GICs were able to release fluoride; however, the amount released decreased with increasing immersion time (p <0.002). The pH of all products increased over time, the lowest value was identified for Magic Glass (5.93) and the highest for Maxxion (6.94) at time of 24 h. Materials showed significant decrease in surface microhardness, especially G4 for presenting the lowest recorded values (p <0.05). Conclusion: GICs are fluoride-releasing restorative materials with pH favorable to oral homeostasis and good mechanical behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Fluoride Release, pH and Microhardness of Glass Ionomer Cements

Cardoso¹,

Leitão²,

Neto³

et al. 2015

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fluoride released from the material is capable of interfering in the enamel demineralization process and on the oral microbiota, even under conditions of high caries risk (7,9,10,18). That was also the main purpose of introducing the fluoride-containing adhesive systems on the market (2,7).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the intrinsic factors are permeability, material composition, specimen's geometry, surface treatment and finishing (9,12,18). Except for the adhesive composition, all the remaining factors were standardized in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Different Mechanisms of Fluoride Release from Adhesive Systems

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and Adper Single Bond 2 (SB2 -3M ESPE) (negative control). CPB and FLB are fluoride containing adhesives that use different F releasing mechanisms. The tested hypothesis was that the F releasing mechanism influences the amount of released F in water. Discshaped specimens (5 mm x 3 mm) were fabricated using a plastic matrix (Demetron Research Corp). Three specimens were produced for each material and each period of evaluation (1, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days) (n=3). Subsequently, the specimens were stored in 10 mL distilled water at 37° C until the analyses were done using a liquid membrane for selective F ion electrode (Orion 710). Four readings were performed on the first day and the remaining evaluation times had one reading/day. Results were statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (a=0.05). CPB released the greatest amount of fluoride in all evaluated periods with the greatest value at 6 th h (0.183 ppm) thereafter decreasing gradually up to the 7 th day when it significantly increased again until the 21 st day. In most measurements, FLB showed similar mean fluoride release values as SB2. Therefore, the fluoride release mechanism influenced the amount of fluoride released in water, confirming the study hypothesis.

show abstract

“…Metodologia: Os cimentos de ionômeros de vidro (CIVs) Riva Self Cure  (RSC-SDI) e Ketac Molar Easymix  (KME-3M-ESPE) foram testados com um material controle (RC-resina composta ICE-SDI), após preparo de dez corpos de prova de cada um (n = 30). Esses corpos foram pesados e armazenados em água deionizada para as aferições da liberação de flúor (eletrodo específico, Orion 9606-BN) em dois períodos: antes (PI: 1, 2, 7 e 14 dias) e após aplicação tópica de flúor (PII: 16,17,18,20,22, 24, 26, 28 e 30 dias). No 15.º dia, cinco espécimes de cada material (n = 15) foram submetidos à aplicação tópica de fluoreto de sódio neutro a 2% ou de gel placebo de Natrosol (n = 15).…”

unclassified

Avaliação in vitro da liberação e da recarga de flúor em cimentos de ionômero de vidro

Leite

Presotto

Costa

et al. 2013

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJETIVO: Este estudo avaliou a absorção de íons flúor em cimentos de ionômero de vidro de manipulação mecânica e manual, por uma única aplicação tópica de flúor. METODOLOGIA: Os cimentos de ionômeros de vidro (CIVs) Riva Self Cure® (RSC-SDI) e Ketac Molar Easymix® (KME- 3M-ESPE) foram testados com um material controle (RC-resina composta ICE-SDI), após preparo de dez corpos de prova de cada um (n = 30). Esses corpos foram pesados e armazenados em água deionizada para as aferições da liberação de flúor (eletrodo específico, Orion 9606-BN) em dois períodos: antes (PI: 1, 2, 7 e 14 dias) e após aplicação tópica de flúor (PII: 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 e 30 dias). No 15.º dia, cinco espécimes de cada material (n = 15) foram submetidos à aplicação tópica de fluoreto de sódio neutro a 2% ou de gel placebo de Natrosol (n = 15). RESULTADO: A maior liberação de íons flúor para ambos os CIVs ocorreu no primeiro dia do PI (KME = 13,44 ± 6,05; RSC = 6,88 ± 0,62) e a quantidade liberada foi semelhante no PII (KME = 6,22 ± 0,80; RSC = 6,67 ± 1,63). A comparação entre os períodos mostrou diferença significante somente para o KME, com maior liberação de flúor no PI (p < 0,05), e para o RSC, não foi detectada diferença entre PI e PII (p > 0,05). A análise de variância e o teste de Tukey (p < 0,05) não indicaram diferenças significantes entre os materiais antes e após a recarga. CONCLUSÃO: Os CIVs de manipulação mecânica ou manual possuem habilidade semelhante para captar íons flúor, quando submetidos a uma única aplicação tópica de fluoreto de sódio a 2%.

show abstract

Fluoride Release from Restorative Materials

Cited by 26 publications

References 16 publications

Evaluation of Fluoride Release, pH and Microhardness of Glass Ionomer Cements

Evaluation of Fluoride Release, pH and Microhardness of Glass Ionomer Cements

Influence of Different Mechanisms of Fluoride Release from Adhesive Systems

Avaliação in vitro da liberação e da recarga de flúor em cimentos de ionômero de vidro

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About