Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Fluoride Release and Microhardness between Restorative Materials

  • Eui-Jin Cha (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Myeong-Kwan Jih (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kyeol-Koh (Department of Dentistry, Catholic University College of Medicine, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital) ;
  • Tae-Young Park (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • Received : 2024.05.27
  • Accepted : 2024.06.26
  • Published : 2024.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Research comparing and evaluating the properties of various dental materials is an important topic in the field of dentistry. This study aims to evaluate the fluoride release and microhardness properties of various fluoride-containing restorative materials used in dental treatments. Materials and Methods: Thirty specimens of four restorative materials were prepared (5 mm × 2 mm, cylindrical): alkasite-based material (Cention N, CN), Self-cure glass Ionomer (Riva self cure, RS), Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji LC II, FL) and composite resin (Filtek Z350XT, FZ). Fluoride release measurements were conducted on 25 specimens at intervals of 1, 2, 6, 13, 20, and 27 days with a fluoride electrode connected to the pH/ISE Meter (Orion Star A214, Thermo Scientific, USA) and cumulative fluoride release was calculated. Vickers microhardness measurements were performed on five specimens from each material with microhardness tester (DM2D, AFFRI, Italy). Results: As a result of measuring the amount of fluoride release over 27 days, the amount of fluoride release in CN showed a gradual increase, while the amount of fluoride release in RS, FL, and FZ gradually decreased. The cumulative fluoride release amount for 28 days was significantly higher in CN and FL than in RS (P < 0.05). FZ and RS demonstrated significantly higher microhardness compared to CN and FL (P < 0.05). FZ and RS showed similar microhardness, and FL showed the lowest microhardness. Conclusion: Cention N (CN) exhibited superior fluoride release compared to Glass Ionomer Cement (RS), making it a promising option for preventing secondary caries. However, it displayed a lower microhardness than the composite resin (FZ), indicating potential limitations in terms of mechanical strength. Therefore, if an anti-caries action is required, Cention N may be considered first; however, it appears to be difficult to use in posterior permanent teeth.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by research fund from Chosun University Dental Hospital in the year of 2023.

References

  1. Gibbons RJ, van Houte J. Dental caries. Annu Rev Med. 1975;26:121-36.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.me.26.020175.001005
  2. Hellwig E, Lennon AM. Systemic versus topical fluoride. Caries Res. 2004;38:258-62.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000077764
  3. Rawls HR. Preventive dental materials: Sustained delivery of fluoride and other therapeutic agents. Adv Dent Res. 1991;5:50-5.  https://doi.org/10.1177/08959374910050010701
  4. Forsten L. Fluoride release and uptake by glass-ionomers and related materials and its clinical effect. Biomaterials. 1998;19:503-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00130-0
  5. Khoroushi M, Keshani F. A review of glass-ionomers: From conventional glass-ionomer to bioactive glass-ionomer. Dent Res J. 2013;10:411-20. 
  6. Bahsi E, Sagmak S, Dayi B, Cellik O, Akkus Z. The evaluation of microleakage and fluoride release of different types of glass ionomer cements. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019;22:961-70.  https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_644_18
  7. Naz F, Khan AS, Kader MA, Al Gelban LOS, Mousa NMA, Asiri RSH, Hakeem AS. Comparative evaluation of mechanical and physical properties of a new bulk-fill alkasite with conventional restorative materials. Saudi Dent J. 2021;33:666-73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.04.012
  8. Mohamed NI, Safy RK, Elezz AFA. Microtensile bond strength, marginal leakage, and antibacterial effect of bulk fill resin composite with alkaline fillers versus incremental nanohybrid composite resin. Eur J Dent. 2020;15:425-32. 
  9. Jayaraj D, Simon EP, Kumar MR, Ravi S. Cention N: A review. Dent Bites. 2018;5:14-21. 
  10. Balagopal S, Nekkanti S, Kaur K. An in vitro evaluation of the mechanical properties and fluoride-releasing ability of a new self-cure filling material. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021;22:134-9.  https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3050
  11. De Moor RJ, Verbeeck RM, De Maeyer EA. Fluoride release profiles of restorative glass ionomer formulations. Dent Mater. 1996;12:88-95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(96)80074-1
  12. Lee D, Kim J, Han M, Shin J. Fluoride release and recharge properties of several fluoride-containing restorative materials. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 2020;47:196-204.  https://doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2020.47.2.196
  13. Shiozawa M, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N. Fluoride release and mechanical properties after 1-year water storage of recent restorative glass ionomer cements. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18:1053-60.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1074-4
  14. Gupta N, Jaiswal S, Nikhil V, Gupta S, Jha P, Bansal P. Comparison of fluoride ion release and alkalizing potential of a new bulk-fill alkasite. J Conserv Dent. 2019;22:296-9.  https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_74_19
  15. Lee SE, Bae JM, Ra J. Evaluation of fluoride release, pH and antibacterial activity of alkasite restorative material and glass Ionomer. J Korean Dent Assoc. 2023;61:504-14.  https://doi.org/10.22974/jkda.2023.61.8.001
  16. Kasraei S, Haghi S, Farzad A, Malek M, Nejadkarimi S. Comparative of flexural strength, hardness, and fluoride release of two bioactive restorative materials with RMGI and composite resin. Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21:e225263. 
  17. Verma V, Mathur S, Sachdev V, Singh D. Evaluation of compressive strength, shear bond strength, and microhardness values of glass-ionomer cement Type IX and Cention N. J Conserv Dent. 2020;23:550-3.  https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_109_19
  18. Lee K, Kim J, Shin J, Han M. Comparison of microhardness and compressive strength of alkasite and conventional restorative materials. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 2020;47:320-6.  https://doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2020.47.3.320
  19. Safy R, Aboalazm E. Comparative evaluation of microhardness and compressive strength of Cention N, Bulk Fill Resin Composite and Glass Ionomer Cement. Egypt Dent J. 2021;67:1657-62.  https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2021.50807.1356
  20. Sardana A, Kumar M, Taneja S. Comparative evaluation of microleakage and hardness of newer posterior restorative materials. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2022;12:733-6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.08.023
  21. Mazumdar P, Das A, Guha C. Comparative evaluation of hardness of different restorative materials (restorative GIC, Cention N, nanohybrid composite resin and silver amalgam)-an in vitro study. Int J Adv Res. 2018;6:826-32.  https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/6737
  22. Anfe TE, Caneppele TMF, Agra CM, Vieira GF. Microhardness assessment of different commercial brands of resin composites with different degrees of translucence. Braz Oral Res. 2008;22:358-63. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242008000400013