You are on page 1of 9

Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2002 29; 791–798

Fluoride release and uptake characteristics of aesthetic restorative materials
Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, University of Hacettepe, Ankara, Turkey

SUMMARY The aims of this study were firstly to investigate the fluoride-releasing characteristics of two composite resins (Tetric and Valux Plus), two polyacid-modified resin composites (Compoglass and Dyract), and conventional glass–ionomer cement (Ceramfil b). The second aim was to assess the fluoride uptake and subsequent release from the same range of materials. Fifteen discs (6 mm diameter and 1Æ5 mm height) were prepared for each material. Each disc was immersed in 4 M L of deionized water within a plastic vial. The release of fluoride was measured daily at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 30 and 60 days. After daily fluoride release was measured for 60 days, samples were refluoridated in 1000-ppm sodium fluoride (NaF) solutions (pH 6Æ6) for 10 min and fluoride release was measured daily for a total of 5 days. The release of fluoride from aesthetic restorative materials was measured by

using specific fluoride electrode and an ionanalyser. Results were statistically analysed by two-way repeated measure ANOVA and Duncan’s multiple range test. The results revealed that all fluoridecontaining materials (Ceramfil b, Compoglass, Dyract, Tetric) released fluoride initially and the release was greatest at the first day. At any time during the test period Ceramfil b released the most and Valux Plus did not release any detectable fluoride (P < 0Æ01). Sample exposures to 1000 ppm NaF solution increased the 24-h fluoride release from all fluoride-containing materials. This difference lasted only 24–48 h after exposure. Ceramfil b had a tendency to recharge not seen with the other materials (P < 0Æ05). KEYWORDS: glass–ionomer cement, polyacid-modified resin composite, composite resin, fluoride release, fluoride uptake

Replacement of restorations because of secondary caries is a continuing problem in restorative dentistry. The ability of a restorative material to resist secondary caries and microleakage at its margins will, to a great extent, determine whether a restoration will succeed or fail (Dionysopoulos et al., 1998). Development of an ideal restorative material, that provides a permanent seal with tooth structure, has been thwarted by complicating factors present in the oral environment: changes in intraoral temperature (thermal expansion), solubility of certain restorative materials in saliva and change in pH (Olsen et al., 1989; Donly & Ingram, 1997). Consequently, increased emphasis has been placed on developing restorative materials with anticariogenic properties.
ª 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd

Fluoride has demonstrated anticariogenic effects and this beneficial effect on the human dentition has led to the examination of available fluoride in a host of dental materials (Rawls & Zimmermann, 1983; Skartveit, Tveit & Extrand, 1985; Olsen et al., 1989; Forsten, 1991; Donly & Ingram, 1997; Dionysopoulos et al., 1998). Glass–ionomer cements were first introduced to the dental profession by Wilson and Kent in 1972. Their main characteristics are an ability to chemically bond to enamel and dentine with insignificant heat formation or shrinkage; biocompability with the pulp and periodontal tissues; fluoride release producing a cariostatic and antimicrobial action (Rawls & Zimmermann, 1983; Skartveit et al., 1985; Olsen et al., 1989; Forsten, 1991; Donly & Ingram, 1997; Dionysopoulos et al., 1998; Hse, Leung & Wei, 1999). Many investigators have demonstrated the ability of glass–ionomer to increase the


Burgess et al. 1998). Young et al. The uptake of fluoride would increase its resistance to acid demineralization and prevent caries formation around restorations (Retief et al. 1995). Two of the materials used were composite resins: one of them was a non-fluoride-releasing composite resin Valux Plus*. 1996). 1994. a couple of so-called ‘light cured glass–ionomers’ were released in the market. 1997). these restorations have been associated with the occurrence of marginal secondary caries relating mainly to marginal leakage and plaque retention (Van Dijken. Seppa. 1993. however. † Vivadent Ets. 1996. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29. Korhonen & Nuutinen. Materials and methods The five aesthetic restorative materials were used in this study and their characteristics are listed in Table 1. Compomer means that the material possesses a combination of the characteristics of both composites and glass–ionomers. GmbH D-6383 Wehrheim/TS Germany. Forss & Seppa.. Forsten (1998) has measured both release and uptake from both types of materials. 1996. Sample preparation Fifteen test samples of each material were in the form of round disc-shaped samples. Burgess et al. 1996. Guggenberger et al. been few studies into the longterm fluoride release from the polyacid-modified resin composites and fluoride-releasing composite resins. 1984. Tam. Skartveit et al. Germany. There have. C ¸ han & Yim. 1989.. Schaan. Composite resin restorations are in constantly increasing demand. 1993. Dionysopoulos et al. The other two were the polyacid-modified resin composites Compoglass† and Dyract‡. Wilson & Smith. De Araujo et al. but actually it shows minimal glass–ionomer reactions (Suljak & Hatibovic-Kofman. 1990. Forsten. 1995. placed between two glass plates. ATTAR & A. although the amount released is low in comparison with that of the glass– ionomers (Swift.. ª 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. Donly & Ingram. All restorative materials were prepared according to the manufacturers’ instructions using the scoops provided. Polyacid-modified resin composites were formed by adding acidic polymers to the original methacrylate resin matrix.. 1995. Forsten. Varpio & Noren. 1991. Flaitz & Silverstone.792 ¨ NEN N. O fluoride content in enamel and dentine adjacent to restorations (Retief et al. Forss & Seppa. Resin-modified glass–ionomer materials were basically formed by adding methacrylate derivatives to the glass–ionomer formula. The aims of this study were firstly to investigate the fluoride-releasing characteristics of two composite resins. Hicks. § EC Kulzer & Co. 1997). 6 mm in diameter and 1Æ5 mm thick made using Teflon moulds. 1995. and the other was fluoride-releasing composite resin Tetric†. The second aim was to assess the fluoride uptake and subsequent release from the same range of materials. 1996). 791–798 . 1993. Malakoff.. 1990. In vitro studies have also shown the ability of conventional glass–ionomer materials and resinmodified glass–ionomer cements to take up fluoride and subsequently release it again (Hatibovic-Kofman & Koch. Both laboratory and clinical research has clearly demonstrated the ability of the resin-modified glass–ionomers to release fluoride (Momoi & McCabe. 1996. Fluoride release from glass–ionomers also has an antimicrobial action against Streptococcus mutans in plaque (Seppa.. De Araujo et al. ‡ Dentsply\De Trey.... 1995. Suljak & Hatibovic-Kofman. Young et al. However. Wilson. Konstanz. France. Studies of the fluoridereleasing properties of composite resins indicate a long-term release of fluoride. 1990)... Torppa-Saarinen & Luoma. 1984. Forsten. 1998). Tam et al. 1996. Ceramfil b. Creanor et al. 1997. The light cured materials (Compoglass†.. 1996. 1990. From a chemistry point of view there are two different routes towards these hybrid materials (Guggenberger. 1986. 1991.. May & Stefan. Liechtenstein. Tyas. Compomer is being marketed for use as a restorative alternative to glass–ionomer cements. It was mentioned that the fluoride treatment had no effect on polyacid-modified composites or fluoride containing composites or the amalgams. The fluoride release from and uptake by the resin-modified products was higher than or the same as that of conventional glass–ionomers (Momoi & McCabe. 1988). 1986. Benelli et al. The last one was the conventional glass– ionomer cement. 1998).. Dyract‡. 1994. 1992. two polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) and conventional glass–ionomer cement. In the late 1980s and early 1990s. Skartveit et al. Tetric† and Valux Plus*) were cured on both sides with a TransluxÒ§ EC Kulzer light *3M.. These include the resin-modified glass–ionomer cements and the polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers).

15. 0Æ1. Materials tested for fluoride release Restorative material Ceramfil b Compoglass Dyract Tetric Valux Plus 793 Material class Conventional glass–ionomer cement Polyacid-modified resin composite Polyacid-modified resin composite Fluoride-releasing composite resin Non-fluoride-releasing composite resin Manufacturer PSP Belvedere. There were statistically significant differences between all the groups. at any time during the test period. An analysis of two-way repeated measure ANOVA indicated significant differences in fluoride release among all five materials (F ¼ 6472Æ08.¶ After copious rinses in deionize water. P < 0Æ01). 30. 5Æ0. 791–798 . 3. UK Vivadent Ets. 2. Each disc was transferred to a new polyethylene test tube containing 4 mL deionized water and stored at 37 °C. Ceramfil b was chemically setting. the samples were grasped with clean metal forceps and rinsed with 1 M L deionized water over the original holding tube. Schaan. 3. Following incubation of 24 h. 2. Fluoride release after exposure to sodium fluoride (NaF) Following 60 days of initial fluoride release. samples from each product were exposed to a standard solution containing 1000 ppm fluoride ion made from 52Æ6 mmol L–1 NaF. 0694236 800647 9511060 618661 70-2010-1302-9 source for 30 s. The polyethylene test tubes were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. and Valux Plus did not release any detectable fluoride. each sample was returned to a container filled ¶ Orion Research Inc. thus collecting the rinse water in that tube. 4. with 4 mL of fresh deionized water and incubated. Fluoride release was measured daily for a total of 5 days. 3. Duncan’s multiple range test were performed to identify group differences for each ANOVA . A one-way ANOVA was performed to mean difference values of each five groups. ª 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. Schaan. The samples were stored at 100% relative humidity for 24 h. Beverly. 5. USA. Statistical analysis of two-way repeated measure ANOVA on restorative material versus time revealed statistically significant difference. Germany Vivadent Ets. Samples were weighed in order to verify standardization within each material test group (±0Æ01). Statistical analysis Two-way repeated measure analysis of variances (ANOVA s) were then performed to compare types of materials for each time point. Initial fluoride release decreased with time. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29. Results Fluoride release (ppm) at days 1. The electrode was previously calibrated with standards whose molarity spanned the actual concentrations of fluoride to be measured (0Æ01. The conventional glass–ionomer cement (Ceramfil b) was significantly higher than all other groups. Also two-way repeated measure ANOVA s were performed to compare time points. Fluoride release was determined at 1. Konstanz.FLUORIDE RELEASE AND UPTAKE Table 1. MA. 4 and 5 are presented in the Table 2. 1Æ0.. 0Æ5. 60 and fluoride release after recharging at days 1. France Batch No. Liechtenstein Dentsply\De Trey. 5. 2. Kent. 15. 30 and 60 days after buffering the solution with equal volumes of total ionic strength adjustment buffer (TISAB). Statistical analysis of two-way repeated measure ANOVA on restorative material versus time revealed statistically significant difference (F ¼ 1030Æ76. 10Æ0. 01915-6199. Fluoride release was measured with a fluoride ion specific electrode (Orion 96-09 electrode§) and an ionanalszer (Orion EA 940§). Liechtenstein 3M. P < 0Æ01). so we examined consequent differences between mean values. Malakoff. Data concerning fluoride was recorded in parts per million (ppm). 4. All fluoride containing materials released most fluoride after the first 24 h and this fluoride release continued over the entire 60 days testing period. 20Æ0 and 30Æ0 ppm). The fluoride concentration was determined by adding 5 mL TISAB to each 5 mL sample solution. Ceramfil b released the most. Initial fluoride release Each sample was placed in a polyethylene test tubes filled with 4 mL of deionized water.

Tables 2 and 3 shows the effects of exposures to 1000 ppm NaF solution. Differences between groups are shown in Table 3. Figure 2b shows fluoride release from the other test materials after exposure to 1000 ppm NaF solution. O Statistical analysis of two-way repeated measure on restorative material versus time revealed significant difference so we examined consequent differences between mean values. Messer & Messer (1997) suggested that each individual product should be independently tested to evaluate the amount of fluoride that can released. However. Figure 2a shows the fluoride release from Ceramfil b after exposure to 1000 ppm NaF solution. 1990). Kan. on the basis of the average of the 15 samples. Their lack of acceptance may be a result of their technique sensitivity to moisture. ANOVA Day 5 Day 4 Day 3 Day 2 Day 1 Day 60 Day 30 Day 15 Day 5 Table 2. Ceramfil b had a tendency to recharge not seen with the other materials. The fluoride release of conventional glass–ionomer cements has been attributed to acid–base setting reactions involving ª 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. 791–798 Day 3 Day 2 Groups Day 1 Ceramfil b 27Æ53 ± 2Æ13 Compoglass 2Æ37 ± 0Æ21 Dyract 0Æ97 ± 0Æ06 Tetric 0Æ55 ± 0Æ08 Valux Plus 0Æ04 ± 0Æ01 14Æ39 1Æ63 0Æ73 0Æ32 0Æ03 ± 2Æ10 ± 0Æ22 ± 0Æ05 ± 0Æ04 ± 0Æ01 10Æ90 0Æ95 0Æ59 0Æ15 0Æ03 ± ± ± ± ± 0Æ95 0Æ10 0Æ06 0Æ03 0Æ01 6Æ86 0Æ59 0Æ38 0Æ17 0Æ03 ± ± ± ± ± . Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29. This lasted for only 24–48 h after exposure.d. ATTAR & A.. low mechanical strength and wear resistance (Burgess et al.) 5Æ97 0Æ48 0Æ28 0Æ05 0Æ03 ± ± ± ± ± 0Æ62 0Æ05 0Æ04 0Æ01 0Æ01 4Æ88 ± 0Æ51 0Æ30 ± 0Æ03 0Æ24 ± 0Æ04 0Æ04 ± 0Æ0 0Æ03 ± 0Æ00 2Æ53 ± 0Æ54 0Æ24 ± 0Æ05 0Æ19 ± 0Æ03 0Æ03 ± 0Æ0 0Æ03 ± 0Æ01 1Æ81 ± 0Æ40 0Æ23 ± 0Æ03 0Æ17 ± 0Æ02 0Æ03 ± 0Æ0 0Æ02 ± 0Æ00 10Æ84 ± 1Æ04 ± 0Æ40 ± 0Æ16 ± 0Æ03 ± 1Æ11 0Æ16 0Æ04 0Æ05 0Æ01 4Æ23 0Æ35 0Æ21 0Æ06 0Æ03 ± ± ± ± ± 0Æ52 0Æ07 0Æ03 0Æ01 0Æ01 3Æ33 0Æ29 0Æ19 0Æ04 0Æ03 ± ± ± ± ± 0Æ40 0Æ04 0Æ04 0Æ01 0Æ01 2Æ52 0Æ21 0Æ14 0Æ03 0Æ02 ± ± ± ± ± 0Æ28 0Æ03 0Æ05 0Æ01 0Æ01 2Æ05 0Æ18 0Æ11 0Æ03 0Æ03 ± ± ± ± ± 0Æ19 0Æ04 0Æ02 0Æ01 0Æ01 Day 4 0Æ66 0Æ05 0Æ04 0Æ22 0Æ00 Discussion There were some differences in fluoride release among the products. Fluoride release from materials tested (ppm) (mean and s. There was no statistically significant difference between the polyacid-modified resin composite and between the composite resin with regard to exposure to NaF or not (Table 3).. glass–ionomer cements are not widely used as a restorative material. Guggenberger et al. There were significantly differences after exposure to NaF between Compoglass and Tetric at day 1–day 60 and day 2–day 1 and also between Compoglass and Valux Plus at day 1–day 60 and day 2–day 1. The first day after exposure there was an increase in fluoride releasing from all fluoride containing materials. and they could represent a valid parameter to guide the selection of a material for specific clinical situations. Figure 1b shows the initial fluoride release of test materials except Ceramfil b from day 1 to day 60.794 ¨ NEN N. Figure 1a shows the fluoride release of Ceramfil b from day 1 to day 60 on the basis of the average of the 15 samples. 1998). Fluoride release from glass–ionomer appears to be much greater than from either fluoride containing amalgam or composite (Forsten. There was statistically significant difference between Ceramfil b compared with all other groups (P < 0Æ05). 1996.

increased the amounts of fluoride on exposure to fluoride followed by a rapid return to near pre-exposure levels already Groups Day 2–Day 1 Day 3–Day 2 Day 4–Day 3 Day 5–Day 4 Day 15–Day 5 Day 30–Day 15 Day 60– Day 30 Day 1–Day 60 Day 2–Day 1 Day 3–Day 2 Day 4–Day 3 Day 5–Day 4 0Æ30 0Æ06 0Æ05 0Æ01 0Æ01 795 ± ± ± ± ± * * * * ± ± ± ± ± * * * * –2Æ35 –0Æ06 –0Æ05 –0Æ01 0Æ00 ± ± ± ± ± * * * * 0Æ76 0Æ06 0Æ05 0Æ01 0Æ01 –0Æ72 0Æ00 –0Æ03 0Æ00 –0Æ01 ± ± ± ± ± * * * * 0Æ82 0Æ04 0Æ04 0Æ01 0Æ01 9Æ03 0Æ80 0Æ24 0Æ13 0Æ01 1Æ34 0Æ16 0Æ04 0Æ22 0Æ01 –6Æ61 –0Æ68 –0Æ19 –0Æ10 0Æ00 1Æ21 0Æ17 0Æ05 0Æ23 0Æ02 –0Æ89 –0Æ07 –0Æ02 –0Æ03 0Æ00 ± ± ± ± ± * * * * * * * * Table 3. 1996). (B) Compoglass.FLUORIDE RELEASE AND UPTAKE fluoride-containing glasses and a polyacid liquid (Smith. 1996). diminishing to a significantly lower level the next day. polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) and fluoride-releasing composite resin did not show an initial fluoride ‘burst effect’. The reason for the rapid fall in fluoride release is likely to be the result of the initial burst of fluoride released from the glass particles as they dissolve in the polyalkenoate acid during the setting reaction. in turn. (E) Valux Plus. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29. In this study. 1990). This material behaves more likely as a resin composite than like glass–ionomer cement in terms of fluoride release (Suljak & Hatibovic-Kofman. The second part of the experiment also showed that all fluoride containing materials released. Compoglass and Dyract in fact seem to follow a similar pattern to Ceramfil b in having the highest release in the first day and having progressively less fluoride release as time progresses. The mean values of consequent differences among groups and the results of significance test Differences 0Æ76 0Æ06 0Æ04 0Æ01 0Æ01 –0Æ81 –0Æ08 –0Æ05 –0Æ01 –0Æ01 ± ± ± ± ± * * * * 0Æ34 0Æ03 0Æ07 0Æ01 0Æ01 –0Æ47 –0Æ03 –0Æ03 –0Æ00 0Æ01 ± ± ± ± ± * * * * ª 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. In the present study. The later slow release occurs as the glass dissolves in the acidified water of the hydrogel matrix (De Moor. because the first phase of setting is essentially the same as that occurring when resin composites are cured. The high concentration observed in the first days are called the ‘burst effect’ of the fluoride. and the carboxylic groups (COOH) of the acidic monomer can undergo an acid/base reaction with metal ions of the glass filler. Verbeeck & De Maeyer. (A) Ceramfil b. This results in the large surge of ion release in the first few days as the material sets and the majority of glass species react. The initially light cured material takes up water with time. However. The mean fluoride release of five aesthetic restorative materials shown as an example in Fig. Compoglass and Dyract released significantly less fluoride initially than did the conventional glass–ionomer cement (Ceramfil b). 1a. –13Æ14 ± –0Æ74 ± –0Æ24 ± –0Æ24 ± –0Æ01 ± * * * * 2Æ33 –3Æ49 0Æ32 –0Æ69 0Æ09 –0Æ14 0Æ09 –0Æ16 0Æ01 0Æ00 ± ± ± ± ± * * * * 2Æ54 0Æ25 0Æ07 0Æ05 0Æ01 –4Æ04 –0Æ35 –0Æ21 0Æ02 0Æ00 ± ± ± ± ± * * * * 1Æ18 0Æ10 0Æ07 0Æ22 0Æ01 –0Æ89 –0Æ11 –0Æ10 –0Æ12 0Æ00 ± ± ± ± ± * * * * 0Æ96 0Æ08 0Æ06 0Æ22 0Æ01 –1Æ09 –0Æ18 –0Æ05 –0Æ01 0Æ00 ± ± ± ± ± * * * * 0Æ90 0Æ06 0Æ05 0Æ01 0Æ01 . 791–798 A B C D E A–B A–C A–D A–E B–C B–D B–E C–D C–E D–E *P < 0Æ05. Yip & Smales. reveals the initial ‘burst effect’ of Ceramfil b and the release remaining at a certain constant level for 60 days. b. (C) Dyract. In agreement with previous studies this experiment showed that the greatest fluoride release occurred during the first 24 h. 1996. This. This result is in accordance with the other studies reported by El Mallakh and Sarkar (1990). (D) Tetric. and also De Schepper et al. 1999). (1991). leads to the formation of carboxylate salts and the release of fluoride (Dentsply De Trey. It seems that this reaction is weak and results in low fluoride release.

within 3 days. Dyract and Compoglass exhibited a significantly lower refluoridation-release property than did the one conventional glass–ionomer material tested. precise minimal fluoride concentrations for caries inhibition have not been established (Swift. Laboratory studies have shown that glass–ionomer cements can be recharged but that resin composites cannot (Hatibovic-Kofman & Koch.. Compoglass. Compoglass. It seems that fluoride compounds added to the composition of composite resin lead to low fluoride release. (a) Initial fluoride release of Ceramfil b. ª 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. Dyract to 1000 ppm fluoride are most probably because of surface-retained fluoride. Arends and Ruben (1988) found that fluoride is released from a resin composite but to a much lesser extent than is released from a glass–ionomer cement.. Suljak & Hatibovic-Kofman. (b) Initial fluoride release of other test materials (ppm).796 ¨ NEN N. (a) Fluoride release from Ceramfil b after exposure to 1000 ppm NaF solution. Even a small amount of fluoride leaching might provide some cariostatic effect if sustained for a long time. 1991. a product that contains specific fluoride compounds besides the fluoride containing reactive glass showed somewhat higher values than Dyract. 1. Burgess et al. In the present study. Dyract seems to follow a somewhat different shape plot to Compoglass. 1996. Compoglass released relatively more fluoride than Dyract. 1996). Compoglass. ATTAR & A. However. The increased fluoride release after exposure of Tetric. 1996). 1989). Dyract and Compoglass act more like a resin composite than like a glass–ionomer cement with respect to fluoride uptake (Burgess et al. (b) Fluoride release from the other test materials after exposure to 1000 ppm NaF solution. O Fig. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29. there were no statistically significant differences between Dyract and Compoglass with regard to exposure to NaF or not (P < 0Æ05). Fig. The fluoride values of the fluoride containing composite resin (Tetric) decreased to almost zero after the fifth day. 791–798 . However. Dyract and Tetric released fluoride in such small quantities that little or no recurrent caries inhibition would be expected. 2.

185. JR & CURY .H. 27. & TATE . Some studies have been conducted on the long-term fluoride release from glass–ionomer cements (Forsten. 88. Many factors. J.. 19. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry. Compoglass. Aged glass–ionomer cements can be recharged with topical fluoride treatment (Forsten. BURGESS . STRANG . 2. The continuum. The ultimate goal of correlating fluoride release with actual caries reduction is an objective that can only be met by completing controlled clinical studies on ª 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. Operative Dentistry. (1988) Fluoride release from a composite resin... (1996) Directly placed esthetic restorative materials.C. BENELLI . Samples exposure to 1000-ppm NaF solution increased the 24 h fluoride release from all fluoride containing materials. (1996) Fluoride release profiles of restorative glass ionomer formulations.P.M. Conclusions 1. J. 215. 1997).H. L.N.A.A. During this research. All fluoride containing materials tested (Ceramfil b. 1991) and can act as slow release systems to apply fluoride directly to tooth structure (Hatibovic-Kofman. Quintessence International.. Acknowledgments This work was partly supported by the grants from Hacettepe University Research Fund (97. J. 424. The levels of long-term fluoride ion release from dental materials are more important than the transient levels of any initial bursts and it is important to follow the release pattern until the steady-state level is reached. ¸ AO .L.T01Æ102Æ025) and The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (SBAG-1804). R.. Caries Research.. DE SCHEPPER . Caries Research.. Normally. will influence its anticaries effectiveness.. to take up and release extrinsic fluoride would indicate that this mechanism may be able to take place in vivo. The clinical significance of the released fluoride is yet to be fully confirmed. A. R.C. such as the site into which the fluoride diffuses and the rate of dilution. References ARENDS . All fluoride containing materials released the greatest amount of fluoride in the first day following sample preparation. Previous studies have shown evidence for this behaviour (Forsten. Koch & Ekstrand. 1991). R. E. W.. GARCIA -GODAY . J. J.G. & DE MAEYER . CARRUTHERS . 17. E.A. & ONG . . VERBEECK . S. faster dissolution of the filling material (Forsten. CAILLETEAU . Dyract. Caries Research..H. Frequent application of relatively low concentrations of fluoride will eliminate caries. In the oral environment this could be the case especially with a plaque induced acidogenic challenge. 12.J. 3.P. BERRY . 280. E. 28. & RUBEN . F. R.M.J.O. 22. 322.M. Ceramfil b had a tendency to recharge not seen with the other materials. L. 1991). B. (1991) A comparative study of fluoride release from glass ionomer cements. W. SERRA . DE ARAUJO .. the fluoride ions were collected in distilled water instead of artificial saliva. STRANG . however. RODRIGUES . there is an increased fluoride release from glass–ionomer materials. E.K. CREANOR .M. (1996) Fluoride release from fluoride-containing materials. H.L. The amount of fluoride released in the present study was determined in a neutral environment. & FOYE . CARRUTHERS . 29. 1990). F. (1994) Fluoride uptake and release characteristics of glass ionomer cements.B. SAUNDERS . NORLING .. 1996). S. 731.C. Quintessence International. polyacid-modified resin composites and composite resins. 1993).. W.A. RALPH RAWLS . however.. in that study no account was taken of presence of plaque or pellicle which may also concentrate fluoride levels. J. At any time during the test period Ceramfil b released the most and Valux Plus did not release any detectable fluoride. & FOYE . R. 791–798 797 materials with well-characterized kinetics of fluoride release. The property of glass–ionomers. fluoride release is increased by lowering the pH of the storage medium (De Araujo et al. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29. as compared with neutral pH may be caused by the undesirable.L. This difference lasted only 24– 48 h after exposure. 513. Tetric) demonstrated the ability to release fluoride initially. DE MOOR .L. CREANOR .FLUORIDE RELEASE AND UPTAKE With regard to clinical criteria. (1993) In situ anticariogenic potential of glass ionomer cement. It has been postulated that the increased fluoride release at pH 5.P. 21. (1995) Effect of extrinsic fluoride concentration on the uptake and release of fluoride from two glass ionomer cements.. the recharge could still be an important factor as the recharged cements. Dental Materials. & CONCEIC E. M. resin-modified glass–ionomer cements. El Mallakh and Sarkar (1990) have shown that the release into artificial saliva is less compared with deionized water but. even in situations of high caries challenge (Toumba & Curzon. under acidic conditions such as found under established plaque. CURY .H. R. J. SAUNDERS ..

20.J. (1997) Glass ionomer materials as a rechargeable fluoride-release system. 81.H. 103. M. Y. Australian Dental Journal. 20. 1). MOMOI . Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research. 4. Journal of the American Dental Association. 54. H.J. Operative Dentistry. (1995) Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: fluoride release and uptake. & INGRAM . 1502. (1996) Fluoride release and uptake in vitro from a composite resin and two orthodontic adhesives.B. N. & HATIBOVIC -KOFMAN .J.M. DENTON . & SMALES . 9. K. 434. 57. G.K.L. (1990) Short and long term fluoride release from glass ionomers and other fluoride containig filling materials in vitro. (1999) Resin-ionomer restorative materials for children: a review.. L. SKARTVEIT . DIONYSOPOULOS . FORSTEN . D. & NORDBØ . European Journal of Oral Sciences. R. 895. (1986) Secondary caries formation in vitro around glass ionomer restorations. 89. PAPADOGIANNIS . Caries Research. (1994) Artificial caries in primary and permanent teeth adjacent to composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations. & SWITZER .C. RAWLS . SKARTVEIT . J.W. K. Quintessence International. SULJAK . S. SEPPA .E. 17.P. 65. 64.J. Turkey. J. 99. M. (1988) A clinical trial of a visible light-cured posterior composite resin restorative material: four-year results. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29. 217.R. Caries Research. Konstanz.V. 448. Quintessence International. 635. TOUMBA . A. Y. Operative Dentistry.. & YIM . ATTAR & A.B. & TOTDAL .F. (1998) Fluoride release and uptake by glass ionomers and related materials and its clinical effect. 49. 182. Correspondence: Dr Nuray Attar.Y. (1992) Effect of different glass ionomers on the acid production and electrolyte metabolism of Streptococcus mutans ingbritt. FORSTEN .B. J. M. 791–798 . MESSER . 19. SØNJU . & RAADAL . Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research.C. HSE .. & OVREBO . FORSS . 120.. D.H. H. & EKSTRAND . 62A Daire: 12. 53. 43. & NOREN . 253. L. A.. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. J. (1989) Fluoride release from glass ionomer-lined amalgam restorations. M. RETIEF .. & LUOMA . ¸ HAN .P. 27. TVEIT . 32. N.G. Dental Materials. L. & STEFAN . & C inhibition effects by conventional and resin-modified glassionomer restorations. KORHONEN . R. GUGGENBERGER .. VAN DIJKEN . KAN . & SILVERSTONE . E. 128.D. B. 98. 173. 527. L. VARPIO . 133. (1995) Inhibitory effect on S. J. L. (1991) Fluoride release from glass ionomer cement in vivo and in vitro. (1990) In vivo fluoride uptake in enamel and dentine from fluoride containing material.P. 222.F.F. 241.L. S. G. Pediatric Dentistry. 357. & MESSER . A. L. (1983) Fluoride-exchanging resins for caries protection. 1. & SEPPA . 7. 26. & ZIMMERMANN . H. SWIFT . VON DER FEHR . 98. KOCH . FORSTEN .A. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research. 27 (Suppl. E. B. (1997) An in vitro caries inhibition of photopolymerized glass ionomer liners. 36. (1999) Fluoride release and uptake by aged resin-modified glass ionomers and a polyacid-modified resin composite. KOTSANOS . K. 107. TORPPA -SAARINEN . (1989) Fluoride release from two composite resins. (1997) In vitro caries TAM . 479.A. (1991) Cariostatic effect of glass ionomer cement: a five-year clinical study. S.K. F. A. (1993) Fluoride release from light activated glass ionomer restorative cements.T. (1998) Artificial secondary caries around two new F-containing restoratives. FLAITZ . L. (1998) New trends in glass-ionomer chemistry. & TVEIT . DONLY . G. K. (1991) Fluoride release and uptake by glass ionomers. & NUUTINEN . & CURZON . A 6-year follow up study. EL MALLAKH .. F. & WEI . 44. M. MAY . (1990) Prevention of enamel demineralization adjacent to glass ionomer filling materials. 44. HATIBOVIC -KOFMAN . 93. mutans by fluoride treated conventional and resinreinforced glass ionomer cements. R. & BARNWELL .R. 18. 19. & SMITH .H. 118. International Dental Journal. 8 Cadde Buket Apartments.. & EKSTRAND . M. Dental Materials.Y. MARSHALL .J. 76. (1986) A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional microfilled and hybrid composite resin fillings. L. WILSON . Biomaterials.M. Quintessence International. Journal of Dentistry for Children. Dentsply DeTrey. LEUNG . P. B. L.. A. & MC CABE .. E-mail: nurayattar@hotmail. O DENTSPLY DE TREY (1996) Dyract Technical Manual and Literature Folder. H.H. Swedish Dental Journal.E.M. Australian Dental Journal. ª 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. E. L. J. 97. J. & KOTSTANTINIDIS .J.. Caries Research. Biomaterials. K. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. (1990) Composition and characteristics of glass ionomer cements. 15. HATIBOVIC -KOFMAN . 250. 22. SEPPA . A. OLSEN . H. T. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. B.. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. R. C.M.K. BRADLEY . L.C. G. (1997) Variability in Cytotoxicity and fluoride release of resin modified glassionomer cements. S.J. 503. (1984) Enamel and cementum fluoride uptake from a glass ionomer cement. 17. YIP .. HICKS . 19. T.. D. 06510 Emek Ankara. (1990) Fluoride release from glass ionomer cements in de-ionized water and artificial saliva. (1996) A fluoride releaseadsorption-release system applied to fluoride releasing restorative materials. Journal of Dentistry for Children. & SARKAR . & KOCH . (1993) Slow-release fluoride. GARCIA GODOY . C. FORSTEN . TYAS .. 151. P. YOUNG . WILSON .. Journal of Dental Research. American Journal of Dentistry. S.798 ¨ NEN N. 6. 2. SMITH . 223. 16. G. H. N. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research. 23. Caries Research. 236.F. (1985) Fluoride release from a fluoride containing amalgam in vivo. Quintessence International. 179.