Rao B Saketh Rama, Moosani Gopi Krishna Reddy, Shanmugaraj Muthu, Kannapan Balamurugan, Shankar B Shiva, Ismail Prabu Mahin Syed
Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Hi-Tech Dental College, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Reader, Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, G Pulla Reddy Dental College & Hospital, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India.
J Int Oral Health. 2015 Jan;7(1):1-5.
This study evaluated the fluoride release and uptake of five common dental restoratives mainly glass ionomer formulations, including a conventional glass ionomer, a relatively new caries stabilization glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II, Fuji VII and Fuji II LC); one compomer (F2000); and one fluoride releasing composite resin (tetric ceram).
A total of 12 cylindrical specimens for each of the five materials were prepared following manufacturer's instructions for manipulation and immersed independently in 25 ml of artificial saliva and stored as five groups Group I-V. Each group was further divided into three sub Groups A, B, C. The saliva was changed every day in all the specimens. No treatment was carried out for the specimens in subgroup A. The specimens were immersed in 2% sodium fluoride for 1 min before changing saliva in sub group B and the specimens were treated by brushing with a fluoridated dentifrice for 2 min before changing saliva in sub Group C. The fluoride release was evaluated on the 1(st), 7(th) and 28(th) day using a fluoride ion specific electrode.
The results demonstrated that the conventional glass ionomer and the recently introduced caries stabilizing glass ionomer showed similar patterns and quantity of fluoride release, which was significantly higher than the resin-modified glass ionomer, the compomer and the composite resin. The resin-modified glass ionomer showed higher fluoride release than the compomer and the composite resin. All the formulations of glass ionomers showed fluoride uptake from the neutral sodium fluoride and the fluoridated dentifrice, by releasing increased amounts of fluoride after treatment, in comparison with the untreated group. However, the compomer and the composite resin showed no fluoride uptake.
The fluoride released by the glass ionomer cements (GICs) was found to be highest during the first 24 h and decreased significantly over the 1(st) week with lower levels obtained on the 7(th) and 28(th) day, thus demonstrating the phenomenon of "initial burst." The composite resin and compomer used in this study did not show this phenomenon of the initial burst. The resin-modified GICs released more fluoride than the compomer, and the composite resin.
本研究评估了五种常见牙科修复材料的氟释放和吸收情况,主要是玻璃离子体配方,包括传统玻璃离子体、一种相对较新的防龋玻璃离子体和树脂改性玻璃离子体(富士II型、富士VII型和富士II LC型);一种复合体(F2000);以及一种含氟复合树脂(tetric ceram)。
按照制造商的操作说明,为这五种材料各制备12个圆柱形试件,并分别浸入25毫升人工唾液中,分为五组(I - V组)储存。每组再进一步分为三个亚组A、B、C。所有试件的唾液每天更换。A亚组的试件不进行处理。B亚组的试件在更换唾液前先浸入2%的氟化钠溶液中1分钟,C亚组的试件在更换唾液前先用含氟牙膏刷牙2分钟。使用氟离子特异性电极在第1天、第7天和第28天评估氟释放情况。
结果表明,传统玻璃离子体和最近推出的防龋玻璃离子体显示出相似的氟释放模式和释放量,显著高于树脂改性玻璃离子体、复合体和复合树脂。树脂改性玻璃离子体的氟释放量高于复合体和复合树脂。与未处理组相比,所有玻璃离子体配方在接触中性氟化钠和含氟牙膏后均表现出氟吸收,处理后释放出更多的氟。然而,复合体和复合树脂未表现出氟吸收。
发现玻璃离子水门汀(GICs)释放的氟在最初24小时内最高,在第1周内显著下降,第7天和第28天的水平较低,从而证明了“初始爆发”现象。本研究中使用的复合树脂和复合体未表现出这种初始爆发现象。树脂改性GICs释放的氟比复合体和复合树脂更多。