Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and recharge potential of novel and traditional fluoride-releasing restorative materials

An in vitro study

Sayan Dasgupta, M. Vidya Saraswathi, Krishnaraj Somayaji, Kalyana Chakravarthy Pentapati, Prajwal Shetty

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the fluoride ion release and uptake of glass ionomer cement GP IX Extra (GE), EQUIA® Forte Fil (EF), Beautifil Bulk (BB), Dyract® XP (DXP), Tetric N-Ceram® (TNC) in vitro. Materials and Methods: The restorative materials were divided into five groups (n = 12), namely G1 - GE, G2 - EF, G3 - BB, G4 - DXP, G5 - TNC. Fluoride release was checked using fluoride ion-selective electrode (Orion 9609BNWP, Ionplus Sure-Flow Fluoride, Thermo Scientific, USA) at time intervals of 1 day and thereafter at 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. Following this, fluoride recharge was done with 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel (12,300 ppm, Pascal International Inc., 2929 Northup Way, Bellevue, USA) after 28 days and each sample was re-checked for fluoride release at the same time intervals. Statistical Analysis: One-way ANOVA with post hoc Games-Howell test for intergroup and repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni test for intragroup analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: On intergroup analysis, Group 2 showed high values of fluoride release and recharge at all-time intervals which were significantly higher (P < 0.001) than Groups 1, 3, 4 and 5. Intragroup analysis showed significantly higher (P < 0.001) fluoride release and recharge at the end of day 1 which decreased progressively with time for all the tested materials. Conclusion: EF showed the highest fluoride release and recharge potential across all time intervals compared to other tested restorative materials and the greatest fluoride release was seen on day 1.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)622-626
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Conservative Dentistry
Volume21
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-11-2018

Fingerprint

Fluorides
Analysis of Variance
Acidulated Phosphate Fluoride
In Vitro Techniques
Ion-Selective Electrodes
Glass Ionomer Cements
Gels
Ions

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

@article{65199b4f52d143c6a524cf78c3d75943,
title = "Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and recharge potential of novel and traditional fluoride-releasing restorative materials: An in vitro study",
abstract = "Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the fluoride ion release and uptake of glass ionomer cement GP IX Extra (GE), EQUIA{\circledR} Forte Fil (EF), Beautifil Bulk (BB), Dyract{\circledR} XP (DXP), Tetric N-Ceram{\circledR} (TNC) in vitro. Materials and Methods: The restorative materials were divided into five groups (n = 12), namely G1 - GE, G2 - EF, G3 - BB, G4 - DXP, G5 - TNC. Fluoride release was checked using fluoride ion-selective electrode (Orion 9609BNWP, Ionplus Sure-Flow Fluoride, Thermo Scientific, USA) at time intervals of 1 day and thereafter at 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. Following this, fluoride recharge was done with 1.23{\%} acidulated phosphate fluoride gel (12,300 ppm, Pascal International Inc., 2929 Northup Way, Bellevue, USA) after 28 days and each sample was re-checked for fluoride release at the same time intervals. Statistical Analysis: One-way ANOVA with post hoc Games-Howell test for intergroup and repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni test for intragroup analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: On intergroup analysis, Group 2 showed high values of fluoride release and recharge at all-time intervals which were significantly higher (P < 0.001) than Groups 1, 3, 4 and 5. Intragroup analysis showed significantly higher (P < 0.001) fluoride release and recharge at the end of day 1 which decreased progressively with time for all the tested materials. Conclusion: EF showed the highest fluoride release and recharge potential across all time intervals compared to other tested restorative materials and the greatest fluoride release was seen on day 1.",
author = "Sayan Dasgupta and Saraswathi, {M. Vidya} and Krishnaraj Somayaji and Pentapati, {Kalyana Chakravarthy} and Prajwal Shetty",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4103/JCD.JCD_338_18",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "622--626",
journal = "Journal of Conservative Dentistry",
issn = "0972-0707",
publisher = "Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and recharge potential of novel and traditional fluoride-releasing restorative materials

T2 - An in vitro study

AU - Dasgupta, Sayan

AU - Saraswathi, M. Vidya

AU - Somayaji, Krishnaraj

AU - Pentapati, Kalyana Chakravarthy

AU - Shetty, Prajwal

PY - 2018/11/1

Y1 - 2018/11/1

N2 - Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the fluoride ion release and uptake of glass ionomer cement GP IX Extra (GE), EQUIA® Forte Fil (EF), Beautifil Bulk (BB), Dyract® XP (DXP), Tetric N-Ceram® (TNC) in vitro. Materials and Methods: The restorative materials were divided into five groups (n = 12), namely G1 - GE, G2 - EF, G3 - BB, G4 - DXP, G5 - TNC. Fluoride release was checked using fluoride ion-selective electrode (Orion 9609BNWP, Ionplus Sure-Flow Fluoride, Thermo Scientific, USA) at time intervals of 1 day and thereafter at 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. Following this, fluoride recharge was done with 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel (12,300 ppm, Pascal International Inc., 2929 Northup Way, Bellevue, USA) after 28 days and each sample was re-checked for fluoride release at the same time intervals. Statistical Analysis: One-way ANOVA with post hoc Games-Howell test for intergroup and repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni test for intragroup analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: On intergroup analysis, Group 2 showed high values of fluoride release and recharge at all-time intervals which were significantly higher (P < 0.001) than Groups 1, 3, 4 and 5. Intragroup analysis showed significantly higher (P < 0.001) fluoride release and recharge at the end of day 1 which decreased progressively with time for all the tested materials. Conclusion: EF showed the highest fluoride release and recharge potential across all time intervals compared to other tested restorative materials and the greatest fluoride release was seen on day 1.

AB - Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the fluoride ion release and uptake of glass ionomer cement GP IX Extra (GE), EQUIA® Forte Fil (EF), Beautifil Bulk (BB), Dyract® XP (DXP), Tetric N-Ceram® (TNC) in vitro. Materials and Methods: The restorative materials were divided into five groups (n = 12), namely G1 - GE, G2 - EF, G3 - BB, G4 - DXP, G5 - TNC. Fluoride release was checked using fluoride ion-selective electrode (Orion 9609BNWP, Ionplus Sure-Flow Fluoride, Thermo Scientific, USA) at time intervals of 1 day and thereafter at 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. Following this, fluoride recharge was done with 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel (12,300 ppm, Pascal International Inc., 2929 Northup Way, Bellevue, USA) after 28 days and each sample was re-checked for fluoride release at the same time intervals. Statistical Analysis: One-way ANOVA with post hoc Games-Howell test for intergroup and repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni test for intragroup analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: On intergroup analysis, Group 2 showed high values of fluoride release and recharge at all-time intervals which were significantly higher (P < 0.001) than Groups 1, 3, 4 and 5. Intragroup analysis showed significantly higher (P < 0.001) fluoride release and recharge at the end of day 1 which decreased progressively with time for all the tested materials. Conclusion: EF showed the highest fluoride release and recharge potential across all time intervals compared to other tested restorative materials and the greatest fluoride release was seen on day 1.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056616380&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056616380&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4103/JCD.JCD_338_18

DO - 10.4103/JCD.JCD_338_18

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 622

EP - 626

JO - Journal of Conservative Dentistry

JF - Journal of Conservative Dentistry

SN - 0972-0707

IS - 6

ER -