Resin‐modified glass ionomer cements: fluoride release and influence on <i>Streptococcus mutans</i> growth

Friedl, Karl‐Heinz; Schmalz, Gottfried; Miller, Karl‐Anton; Shams, Mohammad H.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0722.1997.tb00184.x

Cited by 71 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, strongly adherent bacterial phylotypes in the biofilm of glass-ionomer cement decreased from 1 day to 1 week. This finding agreed with those of previous studies in that the antibacterial properties of glass-ionomer cement 27) negatively affected bacterial metabolism 28) . Fluoride-releasing materials help to prevent secondary caries, which plays a pivotal role in the failure of dental restorations 29) .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Biofilm formation of salivary microbiota on dental restorative materials analyzed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and sequencing

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The microbial diversity of biofilms formed on the surfaces of amalgam, glass-ionomer cement, and resin composite was analyzed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE). The V2-V3 region of salivary microbial 16S rDNA gene sequences of planktonic and biofilm bacteria, after 1 day and 1 week of incubation, was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and analyzed by DGGE. The amounts of strongly adherent phylotypes after 1 day and 1 week on the three dental restorative materials were more than those on hydroxyapatite. Streptococcus salivarius was detected in both loosely adherent and strong adherent groups of all 1-day samples. At 1 week, the amounts of loosely adherent and strongly adherent phylotypes present on the three restorative materials ranked in this ascending order: glass-ionomer cement < resin composite < amalgam. Results of DGGE analysis suggested that glass-ionomer cement was the best material of choice in terms of suppressing bacterial phylotypes in biofilms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Biofilm formation of salivary microbiota on dental restorative materials analyzed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and sequencing

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14,17 Furthermore, scarce data about the use of GIC in bracket bonding have been made available so far. Studies in the literature report that fluoride released from restorations with conventional GIC [18][19][20][21] and brackets bonded with GIC [22][23][24][25][26][27][28] may have a local cariostatic effect when cariogenic challenge is increased during orthodontic treatment. Therefore, white spots, which are signs of decalcification, may be prevented.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Streptococcus mutans counts in plaque adjacent to orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement or resin-based composite

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the number of Streptococcus mutans CFU (colony forming units) in the saliva and plaque adjacent to orthodontic brackets bonded with a glass ionomer cement -GIC (Fuji Ortho) or a resin-based composite -RC (Concise). Twenty male and female patients, aged 12 to 20 years, participated in the study. Saliva was collected before and after placement of appliances. Plaque was collected from areas adjacent to brackets and saliva was again collected on the 15 th , 30 th , and 45 th day after placement. On the 30 th day, 0.4% stannous fluoride gel was applied for 4 minutes. No significant modification in the number of Streptococcus mutans CFU in saliva was observed after placement of the fixed orthodontic appliances. On the 15 th day, the percentage of Streptococcus mutans CFU in plaque was statistically lower in sites adjacent to GIC-bonded brackets (mean = 0.365) than in those adjacent to RCbonded brackets (mean = 0.935). No evidence was found of a contribution of GIC to the reduction of CFU in plaque after the 15 th day. Topical application of stannous fluoride gel on the 30 th day reduced the number of CFU in saliva, but not in plaque. This study suggests that the antimicrobial activity of GIC occurs only in the initial phase and is not responsible for a long-term anticariogenic property.

show abstract

“…Several investigators evaluated the release of fluoride from rmGlCs ) Forss, 1993;Ulukapi et al, 1996;Friedl et al, 1997;Geurtsen et al, 1998c). The release of fluoride varied significantly, depending on the product tested and the extraction medium.…”

Section: (Vi) Dentin Adhesives (A) Composition and Release Of Substancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility of Resin-Modified Filling Materials

Geurtsen

2000

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

357

258

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing numbers of resin-based dental restorations have been placed over the past decade. During this same period, the public interest in the local and especially systemic adverse effects caused by dental materials has increased significantly It has been found that each resin-based material releases several components into the oral environment. In particular, the comonomer, triethyleneglycol di-methacrylate (TEGDMA), and the 'hydrophilic' monomer, 2-hydroxy-ethyl-methacrylate (HEMA), are leached out from various composite resins and 'adhesive' materials (e.g., resin-modified glass-ionomer cements IGICsl and dentin adhesives) in considerable amounts during the first 24 hours after polymerization. Numerous unbound resin components may leach into saliva during the initial phase after polymerization, and later, due to degradation or erosion of the resinous restoration. Those substances may be systemically distributed and could potentially cause adverse systemic effects in patients. In addition, absorption of organic substances from unpolymerized material, through unprotected skin, due to manual contact may pose a special risk for dental personnel. This is borne out by the increasing numbers of dental nurses, technicians, and aentists who present with allergic reactions to one or more resin components, like HEMA, glutaraldehyde, ethyleneglycol di-methacrylate (EGDMA), and dibenzoyl peroxide (DPO). However, it must be emphasized that, except for conventional composite resins, data reported on the release of substances from resin-based materials are scarce. There is very little reliable information with respect to the biological interactions between resin components and various tissues. Those interactions may be either protective, like absorption to dentin, or detrimental, e.g., inflammatory reactions of soft tissues. Microbial effects have also been observed which may contribute indirectly to caries and irritation of the pulp. Therefore, it is critical, both for our patients and for the profession, that the biological effects of resin-based filling materials be clarified in the near future,

show abstract

Resin‐modified glass ionomer cements: fluoride release and influence on Streptococcus mutans growth

Cited by 71 publications

References 14 publications

Biofilm formation of salivary microbiota on dental restorative materials analyzed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and sequencing

Biofilm formation of salivary microbiota on dental restorative materials analyzed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and sequencing

Streptococcus mutans counts in plaque adjacent to orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement or resin-based composite

Biocompatibility of Resin-Modified Filling Materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About