World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride Release and Recharge of Zirconia-reinforced, Resin-modified, and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cements

Soumya L Surabhilakshan, Anupama S Gopinath, Sam Joseph, Varun Kumar, Shiji Dinakaran, Anulekh Babu

Keywords : Anticariogenic, Fluoride, Glass ionomer, Release and recharge, Zirconia

Citation Information : Surabhilakshan SL, Gopinath AS, Joseph S, Kumar V, Dinakaran S, Babu A. Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride Release and Recharge of Zirconia-reinforced, Resin-modified, and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cements. World J Dent 2021; 12 (6):469-473.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1877

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 24-11-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective: To quantitatively assess and compare the fluoride release and recharge of zirconia-reinforced, resin-modified, and conventional glass ionomer cement. Materials and methods: Fifteen disk-shaped pellets having dimension 5 × 3 mm were made in zirconia-reinforced (Zirconomer improved, Shofu), resin-modified (GC Gold label LC), and conventional glass ionomer (GC Gold label) cements concurring to the manufacturer\'s instruction. Each pellet was individually dipped in 10 mL deionized water in an air-tight container for 24 hours. After 24 hours, the specimens were removed and the elutes were collected. This procedure was repeated daily. The quantity of fluoride ions released in the solution was analyzed after 24 hours, 7th day, and 15th day. After 15 days, all samples from each group were recharged with 1.23% APF gel for 4 minutes and were reimmersed in 10 mL of fresh deionized water. Fluoride analysis was carried out on 16th, 22nd, and 30th day by a digital ion analyzer having a specific fluoride ion electrode. Results: The amount of fluoride released was highest for zirconia-reinforced GIC in comparison to conventional GIC and RMGIC. There was also a statistically significant difference in fluoride release after recharge for zirconia-reinforced GIC when compared with conventional GIC and RMGIC. Conclusion: Zirconia-reinforced GIC has added fluoride release and recharging property than conventional GIC and RMGIC. Clinical significance: Zirconia-reinforced GIC having superior compressive strength and fluoride release is an assuring material for restoration holding anticariogenic property.


PDF Share
  1. Garcez RM, Buzalaf MA, de Araujo PA. Fluoride release of six restorative materials in water and pH-cycling solutions. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15(5):406–411. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572007000500006.
  2. Behrend B, Geurtsen W. Long-term effects of four extraction media on the fluoride release from four polyacid-modified composite resins (compomers) and one resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. J Biomed Mater Res 2001;58(6):631–637. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.1062.
  3. Vieira AR, de Souza IP, Modesto A. Fluoride uptake and release by composites and glass ionomers in a high caries challenge situation. Am J Dent 1999;12(1):12–14.
  4. Hicks J, Garcia-Godoy F, Donly K, et al. Fluoride-releasing restorative materials and secondary caries. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46(2):247–276. DOI: 10.1016/s0011-8532(01)00004-0.
  5. Itota T, Carrick TE, Yoshiyama, et al. Fluoride release and recharge in giomer, compomer and resin composite. Dent Mater 2004;20(9):789–795. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.11.009.
  6. Cheng CA, Cho SY. A review of glass ionomer restorations in the primary dentition. J Can Dent Assoc 1999;65:491–495.
  7. Tiwari S, Kenchappa M, Bhayya D, et al. Antibacterial activity and fluoride release of glass-ionomer cement, compomer and zirconia reinforced glass-ionomer cement. J Clin Diagnostic Res 2016;10(4):ZC90–ZC93. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/16282. 7676.
  8. Harhash AY, Elsayad I, Zaghloul AG. A comparative in vitro study on fluoride release and water sorption of different flowable esthetic restorative materials. Eur J Dent 2017;11(2):174–179. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_228_16.
  9. Neelakantan P, John S, Anand S. Fluoride release from a new glass ionomer cement. Oper Dent 2011;36(1):80–85. DOI: 10.2341/10-219-LR.
  10. Cardoso AM, Leitao AS, Almeida TL. Evaluation of fluoride release, pH and microhardness of glass ionomer cements. Braz Res Pediatr Dent Int Clin 2015;15:23–29. DOI: 10.4034/PBOCI.2015.151.03.
  11. Nicholson JW. Fluoride-releasing dental restorative materials: an update. Balk J Dent Med 2014;18(2):60–69. DOI: 10.1515/bjdm-2015-0010.
  12. Tay FR, Pashley EL, Huang C, et al. The glass-ionomer phase in resin-based restorative materials. J Dent Res 2001;80(9):1808–1812. DOI: 10.1177/00220345010800090701.
  13. Virmani S, Hegde M, Shetty S, et al. Comparative evaluation of fluoride release from three glass ionomer cements – an in vitro study. Br J Appl Sci Technol 2016;18(4):1–6. DOI: 10.9734/BJAST/2016/26398.
  14. Dionysopoulos P, Kotsanos N, Pataridou A. Fluoride release and uptake by four new fluoride releasing restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(9):866–872. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.00993.x.
  15. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials-fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater 2007;23(3):343–362. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.022.
  16. Paul S, Raina A, Kour S, et al. Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and re-release and recharge potential of zirconomer improved and cention. J Conserv Dent 2020;23(4):402–406. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_222_20.
  17. Shetty C, Sadananda V, Hegde MN. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength of ketac molar, zirconomer and zirconomer improved. Sch J Dent Sci 2017;4(6):259–261.
  18. Chalissery VP, Marwah N, Almuhaiza M, et al. Study of mechanical properties of the novel zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement. J Contemp Dent Prac 2016;17(5):394–398. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1861.
  19. Kelly JR, Denry I. Stabilized zirconia as a structural ceramic: an overview. Dent Mater 2008;24(3):289–298. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.005.
  20. Mese A. Sorption and solubility of luting cements in different solutions. Dent Mater J 2008;27(5):702–709. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.27.702.
  21. Abdulsamee N, Elkhadem AH. Zirconomer and zirconomer improved (white amalgams): restorative materials for the future. Rev E Cronicon 2017;15(4):134–150.
  22. Leloup G, Vreven J, Vermeersch G. Fluoride release from glass–ionomer cements, compomers and resin composites. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28(12):26–32. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00635.x.
  23. Wilson AD, Crisp S, Lewis BG. Characterization of glass ionomer cements. A study of erosion and water absorption in both neutral and acidic media. J Dent 1980;8(1):68–74. DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(80)80046-7.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.