International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2014 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Differences in the Amount of Fluoride Release among Fluoride-Releasing Cements

Takayuki Ueda, Kaoru Sakurai, Takashi Koike, Koichiro Ogami, Mituhiro Yokomoto, Kyoko Tomura

Citation Information : Ueda T, Sakurai K, Koike T, Ogami K, Yokomoto M, Tomura K. Differences in the Amount of Fluoride Release among Fluoride-Releasing Cements. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2014; 4 (3):78-81.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1111

Published Online: 01-09-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; The Author(s).


Abstract

Purpose

The abutment teeth of removable partial dentures are susceptible to root surface caries and secondary caries, and such caries sometimes result in crown destruction. In particular, in aged patients, this risk increases due to age-associated gingival recession, periodontal disease, decreased amount of saliva, and inadequate brushing caused by decreased finger motor function. Fluoride-releasing materials may prevent such caries. In this study, we evaluated the amounts of fluoride release from various fluoride-releasing cements based on the amount of fluoride release into artificial saliva.

Materials and methods

In this study, the following three types of cement were used: Vitremer 2 Paste (3M Health Care: V2 hereafter) and Fuji Luting EX (GC: EX hereafter) as resin-modified glass-ionomer cements, and Clearfil SA Luting (Kuraray Medical: SA hereafter) as a fluoride-containing adhesive resin cement. Using the method indicated by the manufactures, 5 samples (diameter, 8 mm; thickness, 2 mm) for each type of cement were prepared. The samples were immersed in artificial saliva (5 ml) and left at room temperature. The artificial saliva used for immersion was replaced every 24 hours until 14 days after the initiation of immersion and every 48 hours thereafter until after 30 days. Fluoride release was measured in the immersion solution using a combination fluoride ion-selective electrode connected to an ion analyzer. For statistical analysis, one-way analysis of variance and the Bonferroni test were performed to compare the amount of fluoride ion release among the groups (? = 0.05).

Results

The cumulative amount of fluoride ion release 30 days after the initiation of immersion was the highest for V2 (363.6 ± 87.1 μg/mm2), followed in order by EX (115.6 ± 7.9 μg/mm2) and SA (57.4 ± 23.9 μg/mm2). Significant differences were observed even from 1 day after the initiation of immersion between V2 and EX as well as SA. Concerning daily changes, the amount of fluoride ion release after 1 day was the highest for each type of cement; it was the highest for V2 (89.8 ± 13.5 μg/mm2), followed by SA (35.9 ± 8.3 μg/mm2) and EX (34.3 ± 3.2 μg/mm2). The amount of release gradually decreased after 2 days or more. Significant differences were observed from 1 day after the initiation of immersion between V2 and EX as well as SA. A significant difference between EX and SA was present from 2 until 4 days after the initiation of immersion.

Conclusion

V2 as a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement showed the highest amount of fluoride release, indicating continuous sustained fluoride release.

How to cite this article

Ogami K, Yokomoto M, Koike T, Ueda T, Tomura K, Sakurai K. Differences in the Amount of Fluoride Release among Fluoride-Releasing Cements. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2014;4(3):78-81.


PDF Share
  1. A 10-year report of a longitudinal recall of overdenture patients. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62(2): 179-181.
  2. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement Br Dent j 1972;132(4):133-135.
  3. Fluoride release from glass ionomer activated with fluoride solutions. J Dent Res 2001;80(5):1402-1406.
  4. Fluoride release from light-activated glass ionomer restorative cements. Dent Mater 1993;9(3):151-154.
  5. Proposed nomen- clature for glass-ionomer cements and related materials. Quintessence Int 1994;25(19):587-589.
  6. Fluoride release and recharge in giomer, compomer and resin composites. Dent Materials 2004;20(9):789-795.
  7. Fluoride release process of (resin-modified) glass-ionomer cements versus (polyacid- modified) composite resins. Biomaterials 1998;19(6):509-519.
  8. In vitro caries inhibition effects by conventional and resin modified glass-ionomer restorations. Oper Dent 1997;22(1):4-14.
  9. Fluoride release and uptake characteristics of aesthetic restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(8):791-798.
  10. Degradation of glass filler in experimental composites. J Dent Res 1981;60(11):1867-1875.
  11. A comparative study of fluoride uptake from dentin bonding agents and glass- ionomer cements in permanent and primary tooth enamel. Quintessence Int 1999;30(7):496-500.
  12. Effects of daily fluoride exposures on fluoride release by glass ionomer-based restoratives. Oper Dent 2003;28(2):178-185.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.