Subscribe to be the first to know about Best Deals and Exclusive Offers!
JOURNAL TITLE: The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare
Materials tested were conventional GIC — Fuji 7, GC (group1), resin modified GIC — Vitremer, 3M ESPE (group 2), polyacid modified composite — Dyract, Dentsply (group 3), fluoride releasing composite — Tetric ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent (group 4), Giomer-Beautifil, Shofu (group 5). Fluoride release was estimated at 6th, 24th, 48th hour and weekly interval for 5 weeks. For fluoride recharge, each specimen was exposed to 2 ml of 1.23% APF gel for 4 minutes and fluoride release measured at 1st, 2nd, 3rd day and 7th day. The fluoride release and recharge was measured using fluoride ion specific electrode.
ANOVA and Tukey HSD test were used for statistical analysis. During tested period all materials showed statistically different capability to release and uptake fluoride. Groups 1 and 2 results were comparable in fluoride release. Similarly groups 3 and 5. Groups 1 and 2 vs 3, 4, 5 were statistically very highly significant. Only conventional GIC showed initial ‘burst effect’.
Materials tested showed potential for fluoride release and recharge. Different esthetic materials had variable fluoride release hence selection of materials should be guided by specific clinical situations.
Gururaj M, Shetty R, Nayak M, Shetty S, Kumar CNV. Fluoride releasing and Uptake Capacities of Esthetic Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(5): 887-891.
© 2019 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD. | All Rights Reserved