Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2001 28; 26–32
Fluoride release from glass–ionomer cements, compomers
and resin composites
G. VERMEERSCH, G. LELOUP & J. VREVEN
Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
SUMMARY The short and long-term fluoride release
of 16 products (seven conventional glass–ionomers,
five light-activated glass–ionomers, two polyacid-
modified resin composites and two resin com-
posites) commercialized as fluoride-releasing
materials were measured. A potential link between
the material type and its level of fluoride release
was researched. The fluoride release was evaluated
after different time intervals. Initial fluoride release
from all materials was highest during the first 24 h
and decreased sharply over the first week. Some
groups of materials appeared to be significantly
different after, respectively, 7 and 91 days. How-
Introduction
The ability of a material to inhibit recurrent caries
formation is an important clinical property. Glass–
ionomer cements (GIC) have been used for more than
20 years and it is well known that a major advantage
with this group is their potential caries inhibition
(Hicks & Flaitz, 1992; Dunne et al., 1996) due to their
release of fluoride (Forsten, 1990; Momoi & McCabe,
1993; Takahashi, Emilson & Birkhed, 1993; Diaz-
Arnold et al., 1995; Miller et al., 1995; Tam, Chan &
Yim, 1997) and their antibacterial activity (Feather-
stone, 1994; Seppä, Korhonen & Nutinen, 1995; Friedl
et al., 1997). However, those conventional glass–
ionomer cements should be protected from both mois-
ture contamination and dehydration during the early
stages of setting to avoid a considerable reduction of
physical properties. This led to the development of
light-cured or resin-modified glass– ionomer cements,
which contained the essential components of both an
© 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd
Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School, Université
ever, it was impossible to correlate the fluoride
release of the materials by their type (conventional
or resin-modified glass–ionomers, polyacid-
modified resin composite and resin composite) ex-
cept if we compared the products from the same
manufacturer. The link between fluoride release
and an acid–base reaction seems to be confirmed.
The glass–ionomer composition (glass particles and
polyacid’s type, powder/liquid ratio) should have
more influence on fluoride release than material
type.
KEYWORDS: compomer, fluoride, glass–ionomer
aqueous glass–ionomer and a light-curable resin. This
kind of material combines some advantages of resin
composites, longer working time and rapid setting, and
some advantages of conventional glass–ionomer, spon-
taneous adhesion to dental tissues (Mount, 1994;
Sidhu & Watson, 1995; Vargas, Fortin & Swift, 1995)
with a substantial fluoride release (Takahashi, Emilson
& Birkhed, 1993; Diaz-Arnold et al., 1995; Forsten,
1995; Seppä et al., 1995; de Araujo et al., 1996; Friedl et
al., 1997; Tam, Chan & Yim, 1997). Mitra (1991)
reported that the fluoride release from a light-activated
glass–ionomer cement was not hindered by the pres-
ence of light-activated resin. Momoi & McCabe (1993)
confirmed that resin-modified glass–ionomers had a
potential for releasing fluoride equivalent to that of
conventional cements. At the present time, with a
preventive approach to the control of dental caries,
manufacturers produce many dental materials which
should be able to release fluoride to their environment.
These new fluoride-releasing materials belong to the
26
 F L U O R I D E R E L E A S E F R O M G L AS S – I O N O M E R C E M E N T S 27

Table 1. Materials used in this study

Batch no.
Brand Symbol Type Manufacturer (powder/liquid)

Ketac-Fil Aplicap KF Conventional GIC, encapsulated Espe GmbH, Seefeld, Germany 00821171
Ketac Molar KM High ratio powder/liquid conventional GIC, Espe GmbH, Seefeld, Germany 00524012
encapsulated
Photac-Fil Aplicap PF Resin-modified GIC, encapsulated Espe GmbH, Seefeld, Germany 03121409
Fuji II FII CC Conventional GIC, encapsulated GC Int., Tokyo, Japan 070645
Fuji II LC FII LC Resin-modified GIC, encapsulated GC Int., Tokyo, Japan 140251
Fuji II LC im- FII LC imp Resin-modified GIC, hand-mixed GC Int., Tokyo, Japan 170161/110161
proved
Fuji IX FIX High ratio powder/liquid conventional GIC, GC Int., Tokyo, Japan 130261/010261
hand-mixed
Hi Dense HD Silver reinforced GIC, encapsulated Shofu, Dental Products Ltd, Kent, 089521-2-
Germany 11940981
Hi Fi HF Conventional GIC, hand-mixed Shofu, Dental Products Ltd, Kent, 1194147/
Germany 0994141
Vitrebond VB Liner, resin modified GIC, hand-mixed 3M Co, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A. 19950228
Vitremer VM Resin-modified GIC, hand-mixed 3M Co, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A. 19951215/
19960125
Vivaglass base VG Conventional GIC, encapsulated Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein 700751
Compoglass CG Polyacid-modified resin composite, compule® Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein 717259
Dyract DY Polyacid-modified resin composite, compule® DeTrey Dentsply, Konstanz, Ger- 9511051
many
Tetric T Resin composite, syringe Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein 729188
Heliomolar H Resin composite, syringe Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein 719765

groups of resin composites and polyacid-modified resin
composites or compomers.
The process of the fluoride elution from the material
is a complex one but if we suppose that this release is
linked to the mechanism of the setting process, a com-
parative study of many products which are potentially
fluoride releasing, could aid the understanding of the
principle of this process. Unfortunately, the studies are
sensitive to numerous factors, which make it impossi-
ble to compare one with another (De Moor, Verbeeck
& De Maeyer, 1996).
The aims of this investigation were to compare, us-
ing the same protocol, the fluoride release from several
products belonging to four different groups of restora-
tive materials and to look for a correlation between the
setting process of those groups and the quantitative
fluoride release.
Materials and methods
Seven conventional glass– ionomer cements, five light-
activated glass– ionomer cements, two polyacid-
modified resin composites and two resin composites
were tested. Details of the materials are given in Table
1. Eight cylindrical specimens (7 mm diameter × 3 mm
thick) of each material (except one conventional glass–
ionomer cement, Fuji II CC, used as control in the
different experiments, n= 18) were fabricated accord-
ing to the manufacturer’s instructions. The materials
were placed into a Teflon® mould covered on each side
with a mylar sheet and a glass plate.
Conventional glass–ionomers were allowed to
harden in their mould for 20 min. The light-cured
materials were polymerized for 60 s on both sides with
a Visilux curing unit*. After hardening, the specimens
were removed from the mould and transferred for 1 h
to a wet atmosphere. Each sample was then suspended
in 7 mL of deionized water and stored at 37 °C. After
different incubation times, the samples were rinsed
with 1 mL of deionized water and transferred to 7 mL
of fresh water. Aliquots of 4 mL of each storage solu-
tion were mixed with 4 mL of TISAB (total ionic
strength adjustment buffer) and analysed for fluoride
using an ion-specific electrode (Orion model 9409 SC)
connected to an ion analyser. Using a sodium fluoride
solution mixed with an equal volume of TISAB, a
calibration curve was obtained plotting the measured
voltage (mV) against F − concentration (ppm) on a
semi-logarithmic scale.
* 3M Co, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.

© 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 28; 26 – 32

28 G . V E R M E E R S C H et al.

cantly distinct groups of products. The conventional

Fig. 1. Cumulative mean amount of fluoride (mg/mm2) released
from each material during the first 7 days. Vertical bars indicate
no significant difference (P \0·05) according to Scheffe’s test
(ANOVA, one factor).
Results
The cumulative fluoride release from each material
after 7 days is shown in Fig. 1. A statistical analysis
(ANOVA, one factor, P B 0·005) showed some signifi-
and resin-modified glass–ionomer cements were dis-
tributed among the first 12 products even though the
last four materials were constituted of the polyacid-
modified resin composites and the resin composites.
The ranking observed at this short time was modified
after three months. The fluoride release measured af-
ter the two periods is shown in Table 2. A similar
statistical analysis (ANOVA, one factor, PB 0·005) of
the data measured after three months showed differ-
ent groups of materials from that shown after the
short period. This ranking modification is illustrated
by the fluoride release cumulative curves which are
crossing each other (Fig. 2). During a short initial
period, HiDense released more fluoride than Ketac-Fil
but that decreased later. Ketac-Fil showed a high
fluoride release for a longer period. After 3 months,
Ketac-Fil had released more fluoride than HiDense.
The similar process was observed with Vitrebond and
HiFi.
In spite of this difference of the mean rate of
fluoride release, each product released the greatest
amount of fluoride during the first 24-h period (Fig.
3). This peak is followed by a more or less rapid
decline, bordering zero for certain products like poly-
acid-modified resin composites and resin composites.

Table 2. Cumulative fluoride release from

materials tested (mg/mm2) Mean (s.d.)

Material n 7 days 91 days

Ketac Fil 8 2·99 (0·51) a 7·24 (0·79) A

HiDense 8 2·97 (0·76) a 5·45 (0·16) B
HiFi 8 1·78 (0·24) b 3·10 (0·33) C
Vitrebond 8 1·74 (0·21) b 5·18 (0·43) B
Photac Fil 8 1·67 (0·23) b 3·94 (0·11) D
Fuji II CC 18 1·60 (0·38) b 3·68 (0·77) D
Vivaglass 8 1·04 (0·80) c 1·94 (0·11) E
Fuji II LC 8 0·62 (0·13) d 1·86 (0·38) E
Fuji IX 8 0·51 (0·10) d, e 1·17 (0·20) F
Vitremer 8 0·43 (0·13) d, e 1·00 (0·24) F, G
Ketac Molar 8 0·35 (0·10) d, e, f 0·91 (0·10) F, G
Fuji II LC impr 8 0·27 (0·04) e, f, g 0·99 (0·08) F, G
Compoglass 8 0·12 (0·04) f, g 0·39 (0·09) H, I
Dyract 8 0·08 (0·03) f, g 0·41 (0·10) G, H, I
Heliomolar 8 0·01 (0·01) g 0·04 (0·01) I
Tetric 8 0·01 (0·01) g 0·04 (0·00) I

Means with same letters are not significantly different (ANOVA, one factor, PB
0·05); comparisons at 7 days are indicated by lower-case letters and those at
91 days are indicated by upper-case letters.

© 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 28; 26–32

 F L U O R I D E R E L E A S E F R O M G L AS S – I O N O M E R C E M E N T S
Fig. 2. Mean amounts of cumulative fluoride release in long-
term immersion. The materials illustrated are representative of all
the materials tested: KF (
), HD (
), HF (), VB (), VG (+), In this way, it is shown that conventional GIC re-
KM (2) and CG ().
Fig. 3. Changes in rate of fluoride release from the materials
represented in Fig. 2: KF (
), HD (
), HF (), VB (), VG these materials is due to the formation of a matrix by
(+ ), KM (2) and CG (). Note that the graph included is an
enlargement limited to 42 days on the x axis and to 0·3 mg/mm2/
day on the y axis.
Discussion
Numerous investigations have been performed on
fluoride release from dental materials. Diversity of
methods and experimental protocols prevents compari-
son of results of different experiments. In this study, 16
© 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 28; 26 – 32
29
products were tested simultaneously. All the materials
evaluated in our experiment release fluoride but the
ranking according to their fluoride release varies with
time. This means that the pattern and the speed of
fluoride release are not similar among the various
fluoride releasing materials. This discrepancy between
the ranking observed after a short and long term confi-
rmed the data related by some authors (DeSchepper et
al., 1991; Forsten, 1995; Friedl et al., 1997; Tam, Chan
& Yim, 1997) and the difficulty of comparing one study
with another.
Independently of time, the most fluoride releasing
materials are the conventional and the resin-modified
glass–ionomer cements. However, these two groups
are indissociable when the products of various manu-
facturers are considered, but the comparison of the
different GIC within the same manufacturer underlines
a classification.
lease more fluoride than resin-modified GIC, which
release more than high powder/liquid ratio GIC (KF \
PF\ KM from ESPE and FIICC\ FIILC\ FIX from
GC). These differences in fluoride release rate could be
explained by the following considerations.
For conventional GIC, after powder and liquid are
mixed together, the ion-leachable glass is decomposed
by proton attack at the surface, and subsequently
fluoride ions are liberate from the glass particles (Mo-
moi & McCabe, 1993). Fluoride is dispersed homoge-
neously through the matrix regions of a set cement
and is available for elution for a long period after
setting (Momoi & McCabe, 1993).
In resin-modified glass–ionomer cements, Wilson
(1990) described the setting reaction as a dual setting
one, in which both acid–base, and photo-polymeriza-
tion take place. The acid–base reaction, responsible of
fluoride release, is a normal GIC reaction, which is
started by mixing powder and liquid. The initial set of
the acid–base reaction. The second reaction is a photo-
chemical polymerization process similar to that of a
light-activated resin-composite, which is initiated by
irradiation with visible light of the appropriate wave-
length and intensity. This reaction is either a co-poly-
merization of the HEMA with the polymer side chains,
homo-polymerization of HEMA, or homo-polymeriza-
tion of the functional groups in the side chains (Sidhu
& Watson, 1995). There are two matrices in this type of
30 G . V E R M E E R S C H et al.
cement, consisting of the ionomer salt hydrogel and
polymer. To prevent phase separation, the cement has
been formulated such that the photo-initiated polymer
is chemically linked to the polyacrylate (Wilson, 1990).
Wilson (1990) suggested that the fluoride release rate
may be affected by replacement of part of water in the
cement by resin and further, the fluoride content of
restorative resins is limited by the need for translucid-
ity for the restorative cements. A decrease of fluoride
in the powder enhance the translucidity.
The type and amount of resin used for the light-cur-
ing reaction of resin-modified GIC influence fluoride
release (Momoi & McCabe, 1993). On the basis of the
findings of Mathis & Ferracane (1989), it was assumed
that, in the set materials, fluoride ions might be firmly
encapsulated by the resin matrix and that conse-
quently its fluoride release rate into an aqueous envi-
ronment might be smaller and slower than that of
conventional GIC.
The powder/liquid ratio could also affect the rate of
fluoride release (McKnight-Hanes & Whiford, 1992;
Takahashi, Emilson & Birkhed, 1993; Forsten, 1995).
Muzynski et al. (1988) has shown that a lower ratio
results in increased solubility and fluoride liberation.
The difficulties coming up against the GIC differenti-
ation when all manufacturers are considered, could be
explained by the influence of several factors on
fluoride release.
The powder/liquid ratio as described above and the
way of mixing are also important. Miller et al. (1995)
compared the modes of presentation, encapsulated or
hand-mixed, and various mixing times of glass–
ionomer cements. She observed that generally the
hand-mixed specimens released significantly less
fluoride than those prepared by mechanical trituration.
One possible explanation for this observation is that
the trituration may enhance the reaction between glass
particles and cement liquid. The enhanced reaction
would increase the volume fraction of the cement
matrix and would decrease that of the unreacted parti-
cles in the structure. Fluoride tends to be preferentially
released from the cement matrix rather than from the
glass particles, therefore, trituration would increase the
amount of fluoride available for release because of the
increased volume fraction of cement matrix. On the
other hand, she didn’t find any significant difference in
the cumulative amounts of fluoride released from trit-
urated materials among the different trituration times
(5, 10, 15 s).
© 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 28; 26–32
The glass powder and liquid composition also play an
important role in the fluoride release of GIC. The
fluoride content of the glass powder probably accounts
for this role (Diaz-Arnold et al., 1995). By example,
silver reinforced GIC seem to release less fluoride than
the others. This finding should be due to the low initial
content of fluoride: 40% of the fluoride is replaced by
metal in the cement (McLean & Gasser, 1985). It could
also be due to the formation of silver fluoride which
binds the fluoride ions to the cements (El Mallakh &
Sarkar, 1990) and to the sintering process which pre-
vents saliva or water penetration between the alloy
particles and fluoride releasing matrix (DeSchepper et
al., 1991).
In this study, polyacid-modified resin composites
(PMRC) clearly release less fluoride than conventional
and light-activated glass–ionomer cements. This is
confirmed by Forsten (1995) and Suljak & Hatibovic-
Kofman (1996). That kind of material behaves more
like a resin composite and may not be classified in the
category of glass–ionomer cement (Sidhu & Watson,
1995). They do not release much fluoride and do not
have auto-setting acid–base glass–ionomer reaction,
which occurs without photo-activation (Sidhu & Wat-
son, 1995). In darkness, polyacid-modified resin com-
posites do not harden at all (Forsten, 1995). The
fluoride release mechanisms of PMRC and GIC are
different.
Polyacid-modified resin composite’s composition is
close to resin composites. By example, in Dyract, the
acidic polymerizable monomer, TCB, represents 28%
of the material. This resin has two methacrylate groups
as well as two carboxyl groups. Thus, not only the
monomer can cross-link when initiated through radical
polymerization, but it also can undergo an acid–base
reaction with the reactive glass particles if water is
absorbed from the tooth and the oral environment.
The polyacid-modified resin composite Dyract has been
demonstrated to undergo only a fast acid–base reaction
at the outermost material surface (Gladys et al., 1997).
The extent of the acid–base reaction initiated by water
absorbed at the surface was found to decrease rapidly
toward the material core, implying that the filler prob-
ably becomes chemically attacked by acid–base reac-
tion to the matrix phase only at the outermost surface
(Kakaboura, Eliades and Palahias, 1995; Gladys et al.,
1997). Therefore, if acid–base reaction does exist in
this material, it is a slight and superficial one and is not
responsible of the setting reaction at all.
 F L U O R I D E R E L E A S E F R O M G L AS S – I O N O M E R C E M E N T S
We also observed that resin composites including
t for glass–
the fluoridated composites released very few fluoride,
about 10 times less than polyacid-modified resin
composites during the first 24 h. This confirmed the
results of Takahashi, Emilson & Birkhed (1993),
Forsten (1995) and Suljak & Hatibovic-Kofman
(1996). Fluoride release from resin composites Tetric
and Heliomolar is the result of the dissolution and
the diffusion of sparingly soluble salts (ytterbium
fluoride). If release is to occur, water must diffuse
into these materials, dissolve YbF3 glass particles par-
tially and diffuse out through the resin matrix
(Rawls, 1991). The fact that GIC releases more
fluoride than (polyacid-modified) resin composites
may be partially due to the poor solubility of the
fluoride containing salts (ytterbium fluoride) and to a
more tightly bound and/or less hydrophilic matrix of
the (polyacid-modified) resin composites.
The highest leakage of fluoride occurred during the
first week with the most rapid release during the first
24 h. Independently of the amount of fluoride re-
leased by each product, the percentage of fluoride
released during the first 24 h fluctuates between 52
and 85% of the total cumulative fluoride released
during three months. This observation is confirmed
by the findings of many other authors (DeSchepper et
al., 1990; El Mallakh & Sarkar, 1990; Swift, Bailey &
Hansen, 1990; McKnight-Hanes & Whiford, 1992;
Takahashi, Emilson & Birkhed, 1993; Creanor et al.,
1994; Forsten, 1995; Miller et al., 1995; Suljak & Hat-
ibovic-Kofman, 1996; Tam, Chan & Yim, 1997). Dur-
ing the second week, the fluoride release was
substantially lower and thereafter gradually and
slowly levelled of during the 12-week observation
period. Tay & Braden (1988) and Verbeeck et al.
(1993) suggested that the elution of fluoride occurs
as two different processes. The first is characterized
by an initial burst (1) of fluoride release from the
surface, after which the elution is markedly reduced.
The first process is accompanied by a second bulk
diffusion (2) process, in which small amounts of
fluoride continue to be release into the surrounding
medium for periods up to 2 – 2·5 years. Verbeeck et al.
(1998) proposed different equations which character-
ize the fluoride release kinetics of glass– ionomer ce-
ments, polyacid resin composite and resin composites.
The cumulative amount of fluoride released is de-
© 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 28; 26 – 32
31
scribed by [F]c =[F](I)t/(t+ t 1/2)+ i
ionomer cement whether resin-modified or not,
whereas for (polyacid-modified) resin composites this
quantity is given by [F]c = [F](I)t/(t+t 1/2)+ ht. Both
equations indicate that two kinetics process are re-
sponsible for the fluoride release profile, where the
first term correspond to the initial surface burst and
where the second correspond to the long bulk diffu-
sion. The kinetic parameters [F](I), t 1/2, i and h de-
pend on the formulation. The difference between GIC
and (polyacid-modified) resin composite during the
first process of fluoride release, could be due to the
fact that after curing and before contact with water,
the fluoride in (polyacid-modified) resin composite is
not free but bounded in the filler particles which are
enclosed in the polymer matrix. Conventional GIC
set by an acid–base reaction between a degradable
fluoride containing glass and a polyalkenoic acid. Ini-
tially all the fluoride is in the glass, but during
the course of cement formation fluoride ions are re-
leased into the aqueous acid phase and become
trapped in the hardening gel matrix (Trimpeneers,
Verbeeck & Dermaut, 1998). After setting and before
the contact with water, the fluoride in the GIC is
thus present in the remaining and not yet attacked
leachable fluoride glass, associated to the polysalt ma-
trix (complexed) and in the aqueous pore liquid
(free) (Trimpeneers et al., 1998). In the latter, the
fluoride ions are only loosely bond and free to move.
Fluoride ions are more available in GIC than in
(polyacid-modified) resin composite. During the sec-
ond process of fluoride release, diffusion of fluoride is
higher in the glass–ionomer matrix. This may be
due, as said before, to a more tightly bound and/or
less hydrophilic matrix of the composite bonding
resin.
Even if (polyacid-modified) resin composites release
very few fluoride compared with glass–ionomer ce-
ments, they probably could have an anticariogenic ef-
fect. Future investigations are necessary to determine
a minimum level of fluoride release having anticario-
genic action.
Acknowledgments
We thank Mrs Thérèse Glorieux for her skilful tech-
nical assistance and the manufacturers for providing
the materials.
32 G . V E R M E E R S C H et al.
References
CREANOR, S.L., CARRUTHERS, L.M.C., SAUNDERS, W.P., STRANG, R.
& FOYE, R.H. (1994) Fluoride uptake and release characteristics
of glass– ionomer cements. Caries Research, 28, 322.
DE ARAUJO, F.B., GARCIA-GODOY, F., CURY, J.A. & CONCEIÇAO, E.N.
(1996) Fluoride release from fluoride-containing materials. Op-
erative Dentistry, 21, 185.
DE MOOR, R.J.G., VERBEECK, R.M.H. & DE MAEYER, E.A.P. (1996)
Fluoride release profiles of restorative glass–ionomer formula-
tions. Dental Materials, 12, 88.
DESCHEPPER, E.J., BERRY, E.A., CAILLETEAU, J.G. & TATE, W.H.
(1990) Fluoride release from light-cured liners. American Journal
of Dentistry, 3, 97.
DESCHEPPER, E.J., BERRY III, E.A., CAILLETEAU, J.G. & TATE, W.H.
(1991) A comparative study of fluoride release from glass–
ionomer cements. Quintessence International, 22, 215.
DIAZ-ARNOLD, A.M., HOLMES, D.C., WISTROM, D.W. & SWIFT, E.J.
(1995) Short-term fluoride release/uptake of glass– ionomer
restoratives. Dental Materials, 11, 96.
DUNNE, S.M., GOOLNIK, J.S., MILLAR, B.J. & SEDDON, R.P. (1996)
Caries inhibition by a resin-modified and a conventional glass–
ionomer cement, in vitro. Journal of Dentistry, 24, 91.
EL MALLAKH, B.F. & SARKAR, N.K. (1990) Fluoride release from
glass– ionomer cements in de-ionized and artificial saliva. Dental
Materials, 6, 118.
FEATHERSTONE, J.D.B. (1994) Fluoride, remineralization and root
caries. American Journal of Dentistry, 7, 271.
FORSTEN, L. (1990) Short- and long-term fluoride release from
glass– ionomers and other fluoride-containing filling materials in
vitro. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research, 98, 179.
FORSTEN, L. (1995) Resin-modified glass–ionomer cements:
fluoride release and uptake. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 53,
222.
FRIEDL, K.H., SCHMALZ, G., HILLER, K.A. & SHAMS, M. (1997)
Resin-modified glass–ionomer cements: fluoride release and
influence on Streptococcus mutans growth. European Journal of
Oral Sciences, 105, 81.
GLADYS, S., VAN MEERBEEK, B., BRAEM, M., LAMBRECHTS, P. &
VANHERLE, G. (1997) Comparative physico-mechanical, charac-
terisation of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional
glass– ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. Journal
of Dental Research, 76, 883.
HICKS, M.J. & FLAITZ, C.M. (1992) Caries-like lesion formation
around fluoride-releasing sealant and glass–ionomer. American
Journal of Dentistry, 5, 329.
KAKABOURA, A., ELIADES, G. & PALAHIAS, G. (1995) Evaluation of
the extent of the acid-base reaction in Dyract restorative material
(abstract). In: 32nd Meeting of the IADR Continental European
Division, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
MATHIS, R.S. & FERRACANE, J.L. (1989) Properties of a glass–
ionomer/resin composite hybrid material. Dental Materials, 5, 355.
MCKNIGHT-HANES, C. & WHIFORD, G.M. (1992) Fluoride release
from three glass– ionomer materials and the effects of varnishing
with or without finishing. Caries Research, 26, 345.
MCLEAN, J.W. & GASSER, O (1985) Glass–cermet cements. Quintes-
sence International, 16, 333.
© 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 28; 26–32
MILLER, B.H., KOMATSU, H., NAKAJIMA, H. & OKABE, T. (1995) Effect
of glass– ionomer manipulation on early fluoride release. Amer-
ican Journal of Dentistry, 8, 182.
MITRA, S.B. (1991) In vitro fluoride release from light-cured
glass-ionomer liner/base. Journal of Dental Research, 70, 75.
MOMOI, Y. & MCCABE, J.F. (1993) Fluoride release from light-ac-
tivated glass– ionomer restorative cements. Dental Materials, 9,
151.
MOUNT, G.J. (1994) Glass– ionomer cements and future research.
American Journal of Dentistry, 7, 286.
MUZYNSKI, B.L., GREENER, E., JAMESON, L. & MALONE, W.F.P. (1988)
Fluoride release from glass– ionomers used as luting agents.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 60, 41.
RAWLS, R.H. (1991) Preventive dental materials: Sustained delivery
of fluoride and other therapeutic agents. Advances in Dental
Research, 5, 50.
SEPPÄ, L., KORHONEN, A. & NUTINEN, A. (1995) Inhibitory effect on
S. mutans by fluoride-treated conventional and resin-reinforced
glass– ionomer cements. European Journal of Oral Sciences, 103,
182.
SIDHU, S.K. & WATSON, T.F. (1995) Resin-modified glass– ionomer
materials. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry.
American Journal of Dentistry, 8, 59.
SULJAK, J.P. & HATIBOVIC-KOFMAN, S. (1996) A fluoride release-ab-
sorption-release system applied to fluoride-releasing restorative
materials. Quintessence International, 27, 635.
SWIFT, E.J., BAILEY, S.J. & HANSEN, S.E. (1990) Fluoride release from
fast-setting glass– ionomer restorative materials. American Jour-
nal of Dentistry, 3, 101.
TAKAHASHI, K., EMILSON, C.G. & BIRKHED, D. (1993) Fluoride release
in vitro from various glass– ionomer cements and resin composites
after exposure to NaF solutions. Dental Materials, 9, 350.
TAM, L.E., CHAN, G.P.L. & YIM, D. (1997) In vitro caries inhibition
effects by conventional and resin-modified glass– ionomer
restoration. Operative Dentistry, 22, 4.
TAY, W.M. & BRADEN, M. (1988) Fluoride ion diffusion from
polyalkenoate (glass– ionomer) cements. Biomaterials., 9, 454.
TRIMPENEERS, L.M., VERBEECK, R.M.H. & DERMAUT, L.R. (1998)
Long term fluoride release of some orthodontic bonding resins:
A laboratory study. Dental Materials, 14, 142.
VARGAS, M.A., FORTIN, D. & SWIFT, E.J. (1995) Bond strengths of
glass– ionomers using a dentin adhesive. American Journal of
Dentistry, 8, 197.
VERBEECK, R.M., DE MAYER, E.A., MARKS, L.A., DE MOOR, R.J., DE
WITTE, A.M. & TRIMPENEERS, L.M. (1998) Fluoride release process
of (resin modified) glass ionmer cements versus (polyacid-
modified) composites resins. Biomaterials, 19, 509.
VERBEECK, R.M.H., DE MOOR, R.J.G., VAN EVEN, D.F.J. & MARTENS,
L.C. (1993) The short-term fluoride release of a hand-mixed vs.
capsulated system of a restorative glass– ionomer cement. Journal
of Dental Research, 72, 577.
WILSON, A.D. (1990) Resin-modified glass– ionomer cements. Inter-
national Journal of Prosthodontics, 3, 425.
Correspondence: G. Vermeersch, Department of Operative Den-
tistry, Dental School, Université Catholique de Louvain, Avenue
Hippocrate, 15, 1200 Brussels, Belgium. E-mail:
leloup@patd.ucl.ac.be