Do conventional glass ionomer cements release more fluoride than resin-modified glass ionomer cements?

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the fluoride release of conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) and resin-modified GICs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cements were grouped as follows: G1 (Vidrion R, SS White), G2 (Vitro Fil, DFL), G3 (Vitro Molar, DFL), G4 (Bioglass R, Biodinâmica), and G5 (Ketac Fil, 3M ESPE), as conventional GICs, and G6 (Vitremer, 3M ESPE), G7 (Vitro Fil LC, DFL), and G8 (Resiglass, Biodinâmica) as resin-modified GICs. Six specimens (8.60 mm in diameter; 1.65 mm in thickness) of each material were prepared using a stainless steel mold. The specimens were immersed in a demineralizing solution (pH 4.3) for 6 hr and a remineralizing solution (pH 7.0) for 18 hr a day. The fluoride ions were measured for 15 days. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test with 5% significance were applied. RESULTS: The highest amounts of fluoride release were found during the first 24 hr for all cements, decreasing abruptly on day 2, and reaching gradually decreasing levels on day 7. Based on these results, the decreasing scale of fluoride release was as follows: G2 > G3 > G8 = G4 = G7 > G6 = G1 > G5 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There were wide variations among the materials in terms of the cumulative amount of fluoride ion released, and the amount of fluoride release could not be attributed to the category of cement, that is, conventional GICs or resin-modified GICs.

Microleakage evaluation of class V restorations with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements.

The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the marginal microleakage of conventional Glass Ionomer Cements (GIC) and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cements (RMGIC). The tested materials were grouped as follows: GIC category - G1 (Vidrion R - SSWhite); G2 (Vitro Fill - DFL); G3 (Vitro Molar - DFL); G4 (Bioglass R - Biodinâmica); and G5 (Ketac Fill - 3M/ESPE); and RMGIC category - G6 (Vitremer - 3M/ESPE); G7 (Vitro Fill LC - DFL); and G8 (Resiglass - Biodinâmica). Therefore, 80 class V cavities (2.0X2.0 mm) were prepared in bovine incisors, either in the buccal face. The samples were randomly divided into 8 groups and restored using each material tested according to the manufacturer. The root apices were then sealed with acrylic resin. The teeth were stored for 24 h in 100% humidity at 37°C. After storage, the specimens were polished with extra-slim burs and silicon disc (Soft-lex - 3M/ESPE), then were isolated with cosmetic nail polish up to 1 mm around the restoration. Then, the samples were immersed in 50% AgNO3 solution for 12 h and in a developing solution for 30 min. They were rinsed and buccal-lingual sectioned. The evaluation of the microleakage followed scores from 0 to 3. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn method test were applied (a=0.05). The results showed that there was no difference between the enamel and dentin margins. However, GIC materials presented more microleakage than RMGIC.