Cargando…

Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement (“glass carbomer™”) compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements

OBJECTIVES: To study the fluoride uptake and release properties of glass carbomer dental cements and compare them with those of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three materials were used, as follows: glass carbomer (Glass Fill), conventional glass ionomer (Chemf...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: HASAN, Ammar M. H. R., SIDHU, Sharanbir K., NICHOLSON, John W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Faculdade De Odontologia De Bauru - USP 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6382317/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30810636
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0230
_version_ 1783396650395369472
author HASAN, Ammar M. H. R.
SIDHU, Sharanbir K.
NICHOLSON, John W.
author_facet HASAN, Ammar M. H. R.
SIDHU, Sharanbir K.
NICHOLSON, John W.
author_sort HASAN, Ammar M. H. R.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To study the fluoride uptake and release properties of glass carbomer dental cements and compare them with those of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three materials were used, as follows: glass carbomer (Glass Fill), conventional glass ionomer (Chemfil Rock) and resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC). For all materials, specimens (sets of six) were matured at room temperature for time intervals of 10 minutes, 1 hour and 6 weeks, then exposed to either deionized water or sodium fluoride solution (1000 ppm in fluoride) for 24 hours. Following this, all specimens were placed in deionized water for additional 24 hours and fluoride release was measured. RESULTS: Storage in water led to increase in mass in all cases due to water uptake, with uptake varying with maturing time and material type. Storage in aqueous NaF led to variable results. Glass carbomer showed mass losses at all maturing times, whereas the conventional glass ionomer gained mass for some maturing times, and the resin-modified glass ionomer gained mass for all maturing times. All materials released fluoride into deionized water, with glass carbomer showing the highest release. For both types of glass ionomer, uptake of fluoride led to enhanced fluoride release into deionized water. In contrast, uptake by glass carbomer did not lead to increased fluoride release, although it was substantially higher than the uptake by both types of glass ionomer. CONCLUSIONS: Glass carbomer resembles glass ionomer cements in its fluoride uptake behavior but differs when considering that its fluoride uptake does not lead to increased fluoride release.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6382317
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Faculdade De Odontologia De Bauru - USP
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63823172019-03-11 Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement (“glass carbomer™”) compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements HASAN, Ammar M. H. R. SIDHU, Sharanbir K. NICHOLSON, John W. J Appl Oral Sci Original Article OBJECTIVES: To study the fluoride uptake and release properties of glass carbomer dental cements and compare them with those of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three materials were used, as follows: glass carbomer (Glass Fill), conventional glass ionomer (Chemfil Rock) and resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC). For all materials, specimens (sets of six) were matured at room temperature for time intervals of 10 minutes, 1 hour and 6 weeks, then exposed to either deionized water or sodium fluoride solution (1000 ppm in fluoride) for 24 hours. Following this, all specimens were placed in deionized water for additional 24 hours and fluoride release was measured. RESULTS: Storage in water led to increase in mass in all cases due to water uptake, with uptake varying with maturing time and material type. Storage in aqueous NaF led to variable results. Glass carbomer showed mass losses at all maturing times, whereas the conventional glass ionomer gained mass for some maturing times, and the resin-modified glass ionomer gained mass for all maturing times. All materials released fluoride into deionized water, with glass carbomer showing the highest release. For both types of glass ionomer, uptake of fluoride led to enhanced fluoride release into deionized water. In contrast, uptake by glass carbomer did not lead to increased fluoride release, although it was substantially higher than the uptake by both types of glass ionomer. CONCLUSIONS: Glass carbomer resembles glass ionomer cements in its fluoride uptake behavior but differs when considering that its fluoride uptake does not lead to increased fluoride release. Faculdade De Odontologia De Bauru - USP 2019-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6382317/ /pubmed/30810636 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0230 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
HASAN, Ammar M. H. R.
SIDHU, Sharanbir K.
NICHOLSON, John W.
Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement (“glass carbomer™”) compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements
title Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement (“glass carbomer™”) compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements
title_full Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement (“glass carbomer™”) compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements
title_fullStr Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement (“glass carbomer™”) compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements
title_full_unstemmed Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement (“glass carbomer™”) compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements
title_short Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement (“glass carbomer™”) compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements
title_sort fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement (“glass carbomer™”) compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6382317/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30810636
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0230
work_keys_str_mv AT hasanammarmhr fluoridereleaseanduptakeinenhancedbioactivityglassionomercementglasscarbomercomparedwithconventionalandresinmodifiedglassionomercements
AT sidhusharanbirk fluoridereleaseanduptakeinenhancedbioactivityglassionomercementglasscarbomercomparedwithconventionalandresinmodifiedglassionomercements
AT nicholsonjohnw fluoridereleaseanduptakeinenhancedbioactivityglassionomercementglasscarbomercomparedwithconventionalandresinmodifiedglassionomercements