The Fluoride Ion Release from Ion-Releasing Dental Materials after Surface Loading by Topical Treatment with Sodium Fluoride Gel.

The study aimed to investigate the rechargeability of ion-releasing dental material specimens immersed in distilled water for 25 months, which depleted their ion-releasing ability. Four restorative dental materials (alkasite composite, giomer, glass-ionomer, and composite material) presented with 24 specimens were studied after topical treatment with a concentrated fluoride gel. The effect of resin coating on the ion uptake and release was investigated on additional 42 specimens of restorative dental materials with coatings. The composite materials were coated with two adhesive systems, whereas the glass-ionomer was coated with the special coating resin. After topical fluoride exposure, ion release and specimen mass were measured at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 14-day intervals using an ion-selective electrode and an analytical balance, respectively. The cumulative fluoride levels for the uncoated specimens of alkasite composite were significantly higher than those of giomer and glass-ionomer cement, with no statistically significant difference between the latter two materials. The conventional composite had the lowest cumulative concentration of fluoride ions (p < 0.05). The adhesive systems affected the fluoride recharge and reduced the ion concentrations absorbed by the specimens. Specimens coated with universal adhesive showed significantly higher ion release compared to universal fluoride-releasing adhesive or special coating resin for glass-ionomers (p < 0.05). No statistically significant change in specimen mass was observed during the 14-day period. Surface coating with adhesive systems as well as special coating resin for glass-ionomers affects the fluoride recharge process.

Fluoride-Releasing Restorative Materials: The Effect of a Resinous Coat on Ion Release.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of two adhesive systems and a glass ionomer coating resin on fluoride release and concurrent pH changes over a period of 168 days. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four restorative materials were investigated: a giomer Beautiful II, an "alkasite" material Cention, a conventional composite Filtek Z250, and a glass ionomer cement Fuji IX Extra. Light-cured composite specimens were coated using G-aenial Bond and Clearfil Universal Bond Quick. Glass ionomer specimens were coated using GC Fuji Coat LC. Uncoated specimens were used as references. Quantitative fluoride release and pH changes were measured after1 h, 24 h, 2 days, 7 days, 28 days, 84 days, and 168 days. RESULTS: The cumulative fluoride release after 168 days increased for uncoated specimens in the following order: Filtek Z250 < Beautifil II < Cention < Fuji IX Extra. A comparatively lower fluoride release was measured for the composites coated with Clearfil Universal Bond Quick, with cumulative values after 168 days increasing in the following order: Filtek Z250 < Beautifil II < Cention. The composites coated with G-aenial Bond showed lower fluoride release compared to the uncoated specimens, with cumulative values increasing in the following order: Filtek Z250 < Beautifil II < Cention. The composites coated with G-aenial Bond showed pH values in the acidic range (4.4-5.7) after 1 h and 24 h. CONCLUSION: Fluoride release varied among the investigated restorative materials and depended on the use of dental adhesives and coatings. The pH of all materials, coating types and time points varied.

Microhardness of Bulk-Fill Composite Materials

The aim of the study was to determine microhardness of high- and low-viscosity bulk-fill composite resins and compare it with conventional composite materials. Four materials of high-viscosity were tested, including three bulk-fills: QuiXfi l (QF), x-tra fi l (XTF) and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TEBCF), while nanohybrid composite GrandioSO (GSO) served as control. The other four were low-viscosity composites, three bulk-fill materials: Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR), Venus Bulk Fill (VBF) and x-tra base (XB), and conventional control material X-Flow (XF). Composite samples (n=5) were polymerized for 20 s with Bluephase G2 curing unit. Vickers hardness was used to determine microhardness of each material at the surface, and at 2-mm and 4-mm depth. GSO on average recorded significantly higher microhardness values than bulk-fill materials (p<0.001). The low-viscosity composite XF revealed similar microhardness values as SDR, but significantly lower than XB (p<0.001) and significantly higher than VBF (p<0.001). Microhardness of high-viscosity bulk-fill materials was lower than microhardness of the conventional composite material (GSO). Surface microhardness of low-viscosity materials was generally even lower. The microhardness of all tested materials at 4 mm was not different from their surface values. However, additional capping layer was a necessity for low-viscosity bulk-fill materials due to their low microhardness.

Time dependent accuracy of dental radiometers.

Inadequate intensity of the polymerization light source can compromise the quality and longevity of dental composite restorations. In order to maintain optimal strength of polymerization devices, regular control of polymerization units is necessary. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of two radiometers in the measurement of light intensity of photopolymerization devices concerning the time point of measurement. Light intensity measurements of 16 halogen and 8 LED curing lights were performed using three different devices at the beginning as well as 10 and 40 seconds after the start of illumination. Two were handheld radiometers: Bluephase meter (BM) and Cure Rite (CR), while an integrating sphere (IS) represented the reference device. Data were statistically analyzed using Friedman's test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p < 0.05). The values at the beginning and after 10 seconds measured by BM were significantly higher than the measurements by IS, whereas CR showed higher values after 10 and 40 seconds. Both commercial radiometers tended to overestimate the light intensity of LED and halogen curing units when compared to the reference device. The time point of measurement influences the output value. The heating of radiometers was proposed as a possible explanation for the inaccuracy.