Evaluation and comparison of quantity and pattern of fluoride release from orthodontic adhesives: an in vitro study.

BACKGROUND

Orthodontic treatment has gained popularity since beginning of era of dentistry. Now a day, everyone is conscious about their appearance, smile and function. During orthodontic treatment use of brackets and adhesives are common. The bonding of brackets will cause demineralization which requires the fluoridation. So the study has been under- taken to analyze the pattern of fluoride release by commercially available adhesive bonding material for the prevention of demineralization.

AIM

To evaluate and compare the clinical significance of quantity and pattern of fluoride release from three commercially available adhesives.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the pattern of fluoride release and quantity, to reduce the decalcification of enamel around orthodontic brackets and bands during treatment and to prevent further use of topical fluoride both office and self-use agents for prevention of demineralization/for remineralization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The comparison of quantity and pattern of fluoride release study involved commercially available bonding adhesives. They are: Group I--resin reinforced glass Ionomer light cure material (OrthoLC), Group II--fluoride releasing composite resin material (Excel) and Group III--conventional composite (Relay-a-bond) evaluated on 78 freshly extracted premolar teeth divided into three groups consisting 26 specimens in each group. The prepared specimens were stored in artificial saliva at 37°C in an incubator for subsequent fluoride analysis using ORION ion selective electrode coupled with ionalyzer 901. Fluoride analysis made at 24 hours intervals for first 3 consecutive days and thereafter at the end of 10th, 17th, 24th and 31st day of bonding. The data obtained were tabulated and interpreted by statistical analysis using 't' test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

The quantity of fluoride release in groups I and II was significant even at the end of 31st day. The one-way AVOVA showed intra and inter group significance in the quantity of fluoride release. But group III with zero fluoride release with significant decalcification on enamel which requires external use of topical fluorides. The pattern of fluoride released was 3.06 ppm for group I and 2.01 ppm for group II and was declined sharply after 24 hours; and continued to decline in subsequent weeks. Mean quantity of fluoride release by group I was 15.08 ppm were as group II was 9.02 ppm over the test period of 31 days. At the end of 31st day the group I bonding adhesive was releasing considerable amount of fluoride compared to group II whereas group III was nil. At all the periods inter and intra group mean values were highly significant. And group III acted as base line or control group as it was non-fluoride releasing material.

CONCLUSION

Both the fluoride releasing adhesive bond material are useful to reduce the risk of demineralization and further prevent the usage of topical fluoride application and reduce cost and clinical visiting time for both patient and clinician.