Chung C K, Millett D T, Creanor S L, Gilmour W H, Foye R H
Unit of Orthodontics, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School, UK.
J Dent. 1998 Jul-Aug;26(5-6):533-8. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(98)00017-7.
The aims of this study were to compare the local and systemic uptake of fluoride released from a compomer material (Dyract Ortho) and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer) with that of a conventional resin adhesive (Right-On) and to compare the cariostatic ability of each of the test materials with that of the resin control.
Twenty six patients were randomly allocated to have a bracket bonded to a premolar on one side of the arch with one of the test materials and on the opposite side with the control material. Premolars destined for extraction as part of an orthodontic treatment plan were selected for bonding. A non-fluoride toothpaste was used by all participants for 4 weeks prior to bracket bonding and throughout the 4 week trial period. Fluoride release was measured in saliva, plaque and urine samples taken pre-bonding and 4 weeks post-bonding. Enamel demineralisation was assessed by scoring the buccal surface of each extracted tooth using a caries index.
Neither Vitremer nor Dyract Ortho altered salivary or urinary fluoride concentration significantly 4 weeks post-bonding but plaque fluoride concentration increased significantly around premolars bonded with Vitremer. The test materials as a combined group were associated with significantly less demineralisation than the control material but there was no significant difference in cariostatic ability detected between either Dyract Ortho or Vitremer when each group was compared separately with the control.
Fluoride released from Dyract Ortho or Vitremer is likely to exert a local and not a systemic effect. In a 4-week clinical study, the cariostatic ability of the fluoride-releasing cements, as a combined group, was superior to that of the non-fluoride releasing control but there was no significant difference in cariostatic ability between the two test materials when each test group was compared separately with the control.
本研究旨在比较一种复合体材料(Dyract Ortho)和一种树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(Vitremer)释放的氟化物在局部和全身的摄取情况与一种传统树脂黏结剂(Right-On)的差异,并比较每种测试材料与树脂对照材料的防龋能力。
26例患者被随机分配,在牙弓一侧的一颗前磨牙上用一种测试材料黏结托槽,在另一侧用对照材料黏结托槽。选择作为正畸治疗计划一部分而要拔除的前磨牙进行黏结。所有参与者在托槽黏结前4周以及整个4周试验期内使用不含氟的牙膏。在黏结前和黏结后4周采集唾液、菌斑和尿液样本,测量氟化物释放量。通过使用龋指数对每颗拔除牙齿的颊面进行评分来评估釉质脱矿情况。
黏结后4周,Vitremer和Dyract Ortho均未显著改变唾液或尿液中的氟化物浓度,但与用Vitremer黏结的前磨牙周围的菌斑氟化物浓度显著增加。作为一个联合组,测试材料与对照材料相比,脱矿显著减少,但当将Dyract Ortho或Vitremer每组分别与对照进行比较时,未检测到防龋能力的显著差异。
Dyract Ortho或Vitremer释放的氟化物可能产生局部而非全身作用。在一项为期4周的临床研究中,作为联合组的含氟释放水门汀的防龋能力优于不含氟的对照材料,但当将每个测试组分别与对照进行比较时,两种测试材料在防龋能力上没有显著差异。