Comparative evaluation of fluoride release among four commercially available dental restorative materials: An In-Vitro study

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Endodontics Today

Abstract

INTRODUCTION. Several fluoride-containing dental restoratives are currently available, including glass ionomers (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), polyacid-modified composite resins (compomers), composites, and amalgams. The fluoride release capabilities of these materials differ due to their matrices and setting mechanisms, which in turn influence their antibacterial and cariostatic properties. Glass ionomer cements are particularly favored for their chemical bonding and fluoride release. However, their limitations include water sensitivity and reduced wear resistance, leading to the development of resin-modified glass ionomers. These materials aim to improve moisture sensitivity and mechanical strength while still providing fluoride release. Despite extensive research on fluoride release, comparative studies involving other fluoride-releasing materials are limited. AIM. This study aims to evaluate the fluoride release of two glass ionomer cements, a compomer, and a composite resin, and to assess the impact of topical fluorides on their fluoride-releasing abilities. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The present in-vitro comparative study was conducted at the College of Dental Sciences, Davangere, Karnataka. Four restorative materials were evaluated over 42 days: Conventional GlIC (GC Fuji II), RMGIC (Vitremer, 3M), Compomer (Dyract AP, Dentsply), and Composite (Tetric N Ceram, Vivadent). Specimens were prepared in disc-shaped molds, immersed in deionized water, and fluoride levels measured using a fluoride ion-selective electrode at various intervals. RESULTS. The study revealed distinct fluoride release patterns among the materials. Group I demonstrated the highest fluoride release on Day 1, significantly surpassing Groups II, III, and IV (p < 0.001). While Groups I and II showed a pronounced decrease in fluoride release by Day 2, all groups exhibited a consistent decline over time, with notable intergroup differences. CONCLUSIONS. The fluoride release characteristics of the evaluated restorative materials varied significantly, emphasizing the importance of material selection based on their fluoride-releasing capabilities to enhance dental health.

First Page

46

Last Page

54

DOI

10.36377/ET-0077

Publication Date

1-1-2025

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS