Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461

Compressive strength, fluoride release and recharge
of fluoride-releasing materials
Xiaoming Xu*, John O. Burgess
Department of Operative Dentistry and Biomaterials, School of Dentistry, Louisiana State University Health Science Center,
1100 Florida Ave., New Orleans, LA 70119, USA
Received 29 November 2002; accepted 17 December 2002

The compressive strength, fluoride releases and recharge profiles of 15 commercial fluoride-releasing restorative materials have
been studied. The materials include glass ionomers (Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, Ketac Silver, and Miracle Mix), resin-modified glass
ionomers (Fuji II LC Improved, Photac-Fil, and Vitremer), compomers (Compoglass, Dyract AP, F2000, and Hytac) and
composite resins (Ariston pHc, Solitaire, Surefil and Tetric Ceram). A negative linear correlation was found between the
compressive strength and fluoride release (r2 ¼ 0:7741), i.e., restorative materials with high fluoride release have lower mechanical
properties. The fluoride-releasing ability can be partially regenerated or recharged by using a topical fluoride agent. In general,
materials with higher initial fluoride release have higher recharge capability (r2 ¼ 0:7088). Five equations have been
pffiffi used in curve
fitting to describe the cumulative fluoride release from different materials. The equation ½Fc ¼ ½FI ð1  ebt Þ þ b t best describes
the cumulative fluoride release for most glass ionomers, resin-modified glass ionomers, and some high fluoride-releasing compomers
and composites, whereas ½Fc ¼ ½FI =ðt1=2 þ tÞ þ at best describes the cumulative fluoride release for most compomers and composite
resins. The clinic applications of different fluoride-releasing materials have also been discussed.
r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Compressive strength; Fluoride release; Recharge; Restorative materials

1. Introduction
Fluoride is well documented as an anticariogenic
agent. Fluoride-releasing restorative materials may be
able to reduce the recurrent caries at the restoration
margins [1–5]. Recurrent caries is the most frequent
cause for the failure of dental restorations [6,7]. A
variety of mechanisms are involved in the anticariogenic
effects of fluoride, including the formation of fluorapatite that has lower solubility than the original carbonated apatite, the enhancement of remineralization,
interference of ionic bonding during pellicle and plaque
formation, and the inhibition of microbial growth and
metabolism [8–10]. Fluoride released from restorative
materials can inhibit caries through all these mechanisms although it seems likely that the enhancement
of remineralization is the major mechanisms by
which fluoride released from restorative materials is
*Corresponding author. Fax: +1-504-619-8654.
E-mail address: (X. Xu).

effective [8,9]. These anticariogenic and bacteriostatic
effects vary widely among different materials and largely
depend upon the amount of fluoride the material
A continuum of fluoride-releasing restorative materials has been previously described [11–17] as a means of
defining different categories of fluoride releasing materials. In this continuum fluoride-releasing composite
resins are placed at one end of the continuum, and
conventional glass ionomer restorative materials are at
the other end. Compomers and resin modified glass
ionomers are placed in the middle. The mechanical
properties, bonding properties, and fluoride release
abilities vary substantially across the continuum [14–
17]. Since compomers, glass ionomers, and resinmodified glass ionomers are weaker than composite
resins, the clinical application of fluoride-releasing
materials is usually limited to nonload-bearing areas.
The amount of fluoride released from a restorative
material usually declines sharply after 3 days. The
fluoride-releasing ability can be partially regenerated or

0142-9612/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

(2) materials with high fluoride release have high fluoride recharge. Except for self-cured glass Table 1 Fluoride releasing restorative materials used in this study Materials Manufacturer Resin or liquid composition Filler composition Filler (wt%) Fuji IX Miracle Mix GC America GC America PAA. Xu. The objective of this study is to determine if a correlation between mechanical properties and fluoride release or between the fluoride release and recharge ability exists.4. H2O poly(acrylic-itaconic acid) with pendent methacrylate.6 Resinmodified glass ionomer Compomer 3 Compomer 0. H2O HEMA. Ba–glass. tartaric acid. mixed oxides Al–F–silicate glass 79 Sr–F–silicate glass. However.O. triethylene glycol dimethacrylate. HEMA. UDMA Filler (vol%) Mean filler size (mm) Classification Glass ionomer Glass ionomer 73–74 23–24 4. UDMA.1. TEGDMA DCDMA. YbF3. HEMA. TCB. UDMA. UDMA MPAE. SrF2 Zn–Ca–Al–F–silicate glass.X.8 Composite 90 65 2–20 Composite 78 60 0.4 4.8 0. resin-modified glass ionomers. a reaction product of butane tetracarboxylic acid and hydroxyl methyl methacrylate. urethane dimethacrylate. tartaric acid. the authors will report the compressive strengths. fluoride release. J. propoxylated BisGMA. DCDMA. 2. GI compatible monomers PAA. CDMA.8 Compomer 5 Compomer Ca–Al–F–silicate glass 76 Ba–Al–F–silicate glass. SiO2 Ba–B–Al–F–silicate. UDMA. methacrylated phosphoric acid esters. YbF3 73 56 84 47 81 Glass ionomer 79 59 1. hydroxyl ethyl methacrylate. and fluoride recharge profiles of 15 commercial fluoride-releasing materials across the continuum: conventional glass ionomers. fumed SiO2 Porous SiO2. sintered Ag 78–79 17–19 4–5 Cermet glass ionomer Fluoroaluminosilicate glass. HEMA. bisphenol A glycidyl diacrylate. cycloaliphatic dicarboxylic acid dimethacrylate. TEGDMA CDMA oligomer GDMA TCB. dimethacrylate functional oligomer of citric acid. 23 (metal) 2–3 Ca–Al–F–silicate glass.6 Composite BisGMA. UDMA. H2O TEGDMA Ca–Al–F–silicate glass Ca–Al–F–silicate glass. YbF3.3 Composite 82 66 0. AgSnCu alloy Ca–Al–F–silicate glass Compoglass Vivadent F2000 3M ESPE Dyract AP Hytac Densply/ Caulk 3M ESPE Ariston pHc Vivadent BisGMA. microencapsulated redox catalysts Fluoroaluminosilicate glass 71 51 3 Resinmodified glass ionomer 76–77 25–26 5–7 Resinmodified glass ionomer 1. H2O. TEGDMA. Al–F–silicate glass. H2O PAA. The clinic application of different fluoride-releasing materials will also be discussed. In this study. Poly(co-acrylic acid/ maleic acid). All cylindrical specimens (4 mm diameter and 9 mm height) of each material were prepared in a split Teflon mold following manufacturers’ directions. GDMA. SrF2 Ba–Al–F–silicate glass. TEGDMA Surefil Solitaire Caulk/ Densply Kulzer Urethane-modified BisGMA Bis-GA. Specimens The materials used in this study are listed in Table 1. bisphenol A glycidyl dimethacrylate. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 2452 recharged by using a topical fluoride agent or fluoridecontaining toothpaste. polyacrylic acid. PAA.2–1. glass. MPAE. glyceryl dimethacrylate. BisGA. Our hypotheses were (1) high fluoride-releasing materials have lower mechanical properties than low fluoride-releasing materials. P-BisGMA. TEGDMA Tetric Ceram Vivadent P-BisGMA. YbF3 Alkaline glass. H2O 74 83 Ketac-Molar Aplicap 3M ESPE Ketac-Silver Aplicap 3M ESPE Vitremer 3M ESPE Photac-Fil Quick Aplicap 3M ESPE Fuji II LC Improved GC America Poly(co-acrylic acid/ maleic acid). The material was infused into the Teflon mold and pressed between two microscope glass slides. compomers and composite resins. P-BisGMA. TiO2. the recharge varies widely among different classes of fluoride-releasing materials [18]. . SiO2. H2O Poly(co-acrylic acid/ maleic acid). tartaric acid. Ba–B–Al–F–silicate glass. Ba–Al–F–silicate glass. Materials and methods 2.

One of the reasons is that the resin contents of each class of materials increase in the same trend.0. decomplex fluoride. The data used are listed in Table 2 (except Ariston. each specimen was measured for its diameter and length to 0. 4. Fig. 2 shows the correlation between compressive strengths and the filler content (wt%) (r2 ¼ 0:2353). Fluoride released from the specimens was measured daily for a total of 21 days using a fluoride ion selective electrode (model 96-09. 2. The dimensions were used to calculate precisely the cross-section area and surface area. 2. J.4. Compressive strength experiment The specimens (n ¼ 10) were stored under 37 C for 24 h. a fluoride release baseline was measured daily for 2 or 3 days after the specimens had been stored in ionized water for 3 months during which the solution was replenished weekly. 0.5.2-cyclohexylenedinitrolotetraacetic acid) (Thermo-Orion) was added to each solution. The selfcuring specimens were allowed to set in the mold between the glass slides. 8 and 9 show the results of the fluoride recharge experiment. there are some exceptions for this trend. 2. Data analysis The comparison of compressive strengths and fluoride release data was performed using ANOVA and Duncan test (a ¼ 0:05). to compomers and composite resins.). 1. Xu. Fluoride release experiment The specimens of each material (n ¼ 5) were placed in plastic test tubes containing 3 ml deionized water immediately after fabrication and curing. Then the specimens were taken out of the Teflon mold and light cured 40 s on each cylindrical side surface.0 (SPSS Inc. Then the specimens were ‘‘recharged’’ by applying Oral-B Neutra-Foam 3. The TISAB was added to provide constant background ionic strength. An Optilux 500 curing light (DenMat/Kerr) was used throughout the study.00.100.3 ml of TISAB III (Total ionic strength adjustment buffer) concentrate with CDTA (1. and 0.) with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The final results were reported as fluoride release rate (mg/cm2/day) and cumulative fluoride release (mg/cm2) taking into account the surface area and solution volume of each specimen.X. respectively. Results The compressive strengths of fluoride-releasing materials are in Table 2 and displayed in Fig. 10 shows. Each specimen was loaded in compression until failure using an Instron 4411 mechanical testing machine (Instron Co. Discussions 4. all specimens were light-cured through the glass slides for 40 s on top and bottom surfaces. Compressive strength was determined by dividing the failure load with the specimen cross-section area. The crosslinked polymer matrices in compomers and composite (typically copolymers of Bis-GMA.O. 2.3. Recharge was repeated three times for each material.. The materials with the same group letter have no significant difference. The fluoride release profiles of the studied materials are shown in Figs. The best fitting equations for each material and its parameters are displayed in Table 4. and 100 ppm F. 2. has a higher compressive strength than some of resin-modified glass ionomers (Vitremer and . the compressive strengths generally increase. see Discussion below) Figs. for example. Fig.0% NaF) for one minute and rinsed with running deionized water for 1 min. 3 and 4. 2453 sodium fluoride foaming solution (containing 2. The concentration (ppm) of each solution was directly read out on the instrument display and printed out on a 900A printer (Thermo-Orion). Before measurement.7 ml of each sample solution was pipetted into a clean plastic test tube. 10. UEDMA and TEGMA) generally have higher strength and toughness than the gel network formed by acid– base reaction in glass ionomers.010. The instrument was calibrated each day with five standard fluoride solutions containing 0. Ketac-Molar. and adjust the solution pH. 1. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 ionomers.2. 5 and 6 display the cumulative fluoride releases of each material as a function of time and their best-fitted curves. Fluoride recharge experiment Before recharge.01 mm with a MAX-CAL electronic digital caliper (Fowler & NSK). Compressive strengths As we move across the continuum from glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. After curing. A linear correlation exists between the fluoride release and fluoride recharge capabilities (r2 ¼ 0:7088) as Fig. Figs. The linear regression and nonlinear curve fitting were performed using SigmaPlot 4.1. However. Table 3 lists the equations used in curve fitting. 7 demonstrates that a negative linear correlation exists between the compressive strengths and cumulative fluoride releases (correlation coefficient r2 ¼ 0:7741). Fluoride release from these recharged samples was measured daily for 4 days. Thermo-Orion) and Orion 920A PH/ISE meter (Thermo-Orion).

which are not present in glass . C C B B B.8) 51 (10) 8. H G.O. This partially contributes to the lower mechanical properties of glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. C D D E E F F E F 398 (32) 318 (47) 160 (10) 132 (75) 374 (6.I.1) (14) (14) (12) (18) (11) (11) (18) (16) (20) (18) (45) (22) (26) The values within the same letter group have no significant difference. Compressive Strength (MPa) and Cumulative Fluoride Release (µg/cm2) 450 400 Compressive Strength 350 Cum. 2 shows a poor correlation between the compressive strength and the filler wt% (r2 ¼ 0:2353). Resin modified G.0 (2. Resin modified G.I.) (mg/cm2) Ducan groupinga (a ¼ 0:05) Miracle Mix Ketac-Silver Fuji IX Ketac-Molar Photac-Fil Vitremer Fuji II LC Improved Compoglass F2000 Dyract AP Hytac Ariston Solitaire Surefil Tetric Ceram Glass ionomer Glass ionomer Glass ionomer Glass ionomer Resin modified G. F F. I A G. Dev. G H. mechanical properties generally increase with the increase of the filler load. Calcium is the essential part of the glass filler particles in glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. Photac-Fil). however. Compressive strengths and cumulative fluoride release (in 21 days) of fluoride-releasing materials.X. It initiates the reaction with the acids or polyacids to form crosslinked gel network. J. Xu.) (MPa) Ducan groupinga (a ¼ 0:05) Cumulative fluoride release in 21 Days (Std. Fig. F Release 300 250 200 150 100 50 M ira c Ke le M ta c. The composition of the fillers may be more important.0) A B D D. fluoroaluminosilicate glass is the major component of the filler in all fluoride-releasing materials in this study. The Ca–Al–F–silicate glass fillers are more soluble and weaker than those fillers used in composites that do not contain calcium. Dev. composite resins often contain hard. insoluble silica (SiO2) particles. In addition. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 2454 Table 2 Compressive strengths and cumulative fluoride release of fluoride releasing materials Materials Classification Compressive strength (Std. Filler load and composition may have significant influence on the mechanical properties. but resin-modified glass ionomers generally have higher toughness and better esthetics than conventional glass ionomers. Compomer Compomer Compomer Compomer Composite resin Composite resin Composite resin Composite resin 117 127 168 184 150 154 166 227 231 262 254 285 290 265 286 A A B.4) 80 (4. H I a (22) (7.I.2) 21 (1. E A D C C E. om er po gl as s F2 00 D 0 yr ac tA P H yt ac Su re f Ar il is to n S Te olit ai tri re c C er am 0 Materials Fig. 1.6) 162 (11) 230 (11) 198 (14) 108 (8.0) 422 (35) 51 (2. the relationship becomes complicated.ix Si lv er F Ke uj ta i IX cM Ph ola ot r ac Fu -F ji i Il LC l I m Vi p C trem . For the same type of materials. As Table 1 shows. When comparing different type of materials.

Ariston (so-called ‘‘smart material’’) contains alkaline glass in its filler that 90 Fuji IX Miracle Mix Ketac-Molar 70 Ketac-Silver 2 Fluoire Release Rate ( µ g/cm /day) 80 60 Fuji II LC Imp. As we move across the continuum from glass ionomer to composite resins.X. the fluoride release sustains at a lower level for a relatively long time.. In many compomers and composites. Vitremer 50 Photac-Fil 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Time (day) Fig.O. the fluoride release generally decreases because resin contents increase. 3 and 4. Filler composition and particle size also have significant influence on the fluoride release. The Ca–Al–F–silicate glass fillers in glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers are more soluble and thus release more fluoride. Some metalreinforced glass ionomer (Miracle Mix. 2. The cumulative fluoride release for 21 days is shown in Table 2 and Fig. Some materials like Compoglass and Ariston have sustained fluoride release at a higher level (10– 20 mg/cm2/day). 1. Most of the compomers and composites initially release a low level of fluoride (less than 10 mg/ cm2/day) and sustain this release at the similar level for a long time. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. Fluoroaluminosilicate glass is the major component of the filler and the main source of fluoride in all fluoride-releasing materials in this study. . After that.e.2353 Compressive Strength (MPa) 300 250 200 150 100 50 70 75 80 85 90 95 Filler Load (wt%) Fig. barium or strontium are added in the filler glass to increase radiopacity. As mentioned before. which have only 3 days of fluoride release above 10 mg/cm2/day. Ketac-Silver) and resin-modified glass ionomers (Fuji II LC Improved 350 2 r =0. Ketac-Molar). such as bactericide. Correlation between compressive strength and filler load. J. Fluoride release profiles As we can see in Figs. all glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers have an initially high (40 mg/cm2/day or above) fluoride release. immediately after restoration. but then it declines rapidly after the first 3 days (i. 2455 and Photac Fil) have longer time (at least 10 days) of fluoride release above 10 mg/cm2/day than conventional glass ionomers (Fuji IX. Fluoride release profile of glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. The burst effect of fluoride release in glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers may have some beneficial biological effects. 4. 3. the so-called ‘‘burst effect’’). This also leads to the higher strength of composite resins. Xu. Ytterbium trifluoride (YbF3) is used in Compoglass and Tetric Ceram to increase fluoride release as well as radiopacity.2. But Photac-Fil and Ariston are exceptions because they release an equivalent or even higher amount of fluoride than some of the conventional glass ionomers.

8 mm. Therefore the direct bactericidal effect of fluoride released from restorative materials is very limited and is due to combination of fluoride and acidity. Table 3 Equations describing the fluoride release kinetics Equation no. No glass ionomers maintains its acidity for periods past 48 h. particularly glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. 4. the authors concluded that a composite releasing 200–300 mg/cm2 fluoride over a 1-month period would completely inhibit secondary caries. Others have reported that a minimum inhibitory concentration of 100–200 mg/ml of NaF is required to inhibit the growth of oral streptococci [20] while concentrations up to 30-fold were necessary to be bactericidal. [21] have demonstrated that enamel demineralization decreased as fluoride release from a composite resin restorative material increased. The question still remains however. Xu.17]. Fluoride release kinetics The kinetics and mechanism of the fluoride release process of fluoride-releasing materials. Dyract AP has higher fluoride release as well as higher compressive strength than Dyract [16. It not only releases high amount of fluoride. bacteria and plaque accumulate on the restorations. Because fluoride releasing materials release reduced amounts of fluoride and other ions.O. the main ‘‘improvement’’ of Fuji II LC Improved over Fuji II LC is that the former has smaller filler particle size thus higher fluoride release.20] [21] [22] [24] [25] is more soluble under lower pH conditions. how much fluoride release from restorative materials is enough to inhibit recurrent or secondary caries? While important clinically. [19] reported that 20 part per million. For example. this question has not had a definite answer yet. Dyract has a mean particle size 2. We believe that the more important effect of fluoride is remineralization of enamel and dentin.X.3. but also release calcium and phosphate ions. J. As a result. Also based on the manufacturer’s information. with time. Fluoride release profile of compomers and composite resins. have been extensively studied. fluoride released from restorative materials seems to kill bacteria directly although this kill rate seems to be a function of low pH (B5) and fluoride release. By extrapolating data. 4.4 mm while Dyract AP has a mean particle size 0. 1 2 3 4 5 Equation ½Fc ½Fc ½Fc ½Fc ½Fc pffiffi pffi ¼ a þ b t þ ct pffiffi bffiffi t ¼ ½FI ð1  eb t Þ þp bt ¼ ½FI ð1  e Þ þ b ptffiffi ¼ ½FI =ðt1=2 þ tÞ þ b t ¼ ½FI =ðt1=2 þ tÞ þ at References [19. A more detailed study of bactericidal effect and remineralization effect of fluoride is beyond the scope of this article. Reducing the filler particle size can increase fluoride release because smaller particles have larger surface areas. and several equations have been suggested to describe the cumulative fluoride release as a . DeSchepper et al. Solitaire also contains more soluble strontium fluoride (SrF2) salt to enhance its fluoride release but this soluble salt has adverse effect on the mechanical properties (this will be further discussed later). Naturally occurring fluoride at concentrations as high as 21 mg/ml do not produce any obvious effects on the composition of supragingival plaque. Dijkman et al. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 2456 90 Compoglass Fluoire Release Rate (µg/cm2/day) 80 Dyract AP F2000 70 Hytac Ariston 60 Surefil 50 Solitaire Tetric Ceram 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Time (day) Fig.

999391 3.92673 0.82 29. The results are shown .9545 5 Surefil r2 N 0.990748 5.990956 13.92 0.33299 0.0432 0.4054 0. 5 0.25 2.999043 3.996717 16. (2) Eq.07 3 Compoglass r2 N 0.5505 0.2761 0.999268 3.980646 1.62541 5 Hytac r2 N 0.86127 3 Ariston r2 N 0.45 248.690 33.5764 0. The adequacy of these equations was determined based on the correlation coefficient (r2 ) and normalized residuals or norm (N).30] proposed Eqs.10 4. (5) Best eq.01589 Parameter Value ½FI b b ½FI b b ½FI b b ½FI t1=2 a ½FI b b ½FI b b ½FI b b ½FI b b ½FI t1=2 a ½FI t1=2 a ½FI b b ½FI t1=2 a ½FI t1=2 a ½FI b b ½FI t1=2 a 33.140 2.999630 8.5791 0.3084 0.997919 6.20239 0.999127 3.90 0.7053 0.5505 0.70 0.4353 0.3045 0. J.999839 1.996690 20.984465 6.11 0.23E-10 r2 is correlation coefficient and N is normalized residuals (norm) (The smaller the N. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 2457 Table 4 Comparison of the equations given in Table 3 for their adequacy of presenting cumulative fluoride release Materials Eq.990834 11.997650 6.9993948 0.999800 7.999890 1.6474 0. (5) was best for compomers and composite resins.5384 0.997925 12.49618 0.999248 11.999415 3. Wilson and co-workers proposed the wellknown equation (No.03692 0.999149 3.9973767 1.995800 43.973497 23. (3) Eq.536 188. The authors used the SigmaPlot curve fitter (SPSS.824 2.999497 6.999002 7.X.86 0.999925 6.998988 7.4161 0.999750 19.19228 0.7071 0.999945 3. Those equations are listed in Table 3.998612 18.564 3 Photac-Fil r2 N 0.033 1.786 2.5651 0.031 2.3705 0.999733 2.999595 10. This algorithm seeks the values of the parameters that minimize the sum of the squared differences between the observed values and predicted values of the dependent variable. Xu.47515 0.0021 0. (3)–(5) and used them to describe wide range of materials.4831 0.71985 0.8505 0.37E-08 11.2339 0.5651 3 Dyract AP r2 N 0.999477 3.2836 0.4747 3 Ketac-Silver r2 N 0.987785 20.656 0.121 7.999171 3.9187 0.4200 5 Fuji II LC Imp.2466 0.997139 7.53 5.043 29.206 65.932 29.984022 34.993989 31.880 310.223 0.996566 24.5129 0.9940878 7.996724 27.64 4.1445 0.183217 4.2622 0.649 22.999517 7.) to apply these equations to the experimental data. 1 in Table 3).4224 5 Solitaire r2 N 0.998871 9.230 0.082 456.5167 0.4603 0.10 0.12328 3 Tetric Ceram r2 N 0. (4) Eq.999831 3.27 24.4000 0.4101 3 Ketac-Molar r2 N 0.380 5.088 29.999770 5.03692 0.28]. r2 N 0.36055 0.90 11.993 51.4388 0.70309 0.9994285 0.159 0.0286 0.998977 9. (2) to describe the fluoride release of glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers.940 188.29.999840 4.654639 0. The best values of r2 and N are displayed in bold.049 27. Tay [26] used Eq.7323 0.80407 0.33299 0.11 0.999327 3.183217 0. whereas Eq.2059 0.996477 63.40 0.997004 6.999939 0.63618 0.999610 0.999931 1.998777 8.999610 0.59 0.745 63.996260 19.0106 0. Co.O.999949 2.00 98.970003 1. (1) Eq.2897 3 Vitremer r2 N 0.1174 5 F2000 r2 N 0.984027 30.140 7.999417 3. Verbeeck and co-workers [27.999564 2.0144 0.993686 44. the better the fitting).999289 3.999410 3. (4) was best for glass ionomers whether resinmodified or not. They concluded [30] that Eq. which have been used by other researchers [23.999474 5.815 28.999280 12.997444 22.465 107. The curve fitter uses the Marquardt–Levenberg algorithm to find the coefficients (parameters) of the independent variable(s) that gives the best fit between the equation and the data. function of time [22–28].5616 0. Fuji IX 2 r N 0.6195 0.6169 0.999513 0.994528 100.999825 0.3357 2 Miracle Mix r2 N 0.8471 0.9989835 0.517 5.999967 2.

Cumulative Fluoride Release (µg/cm2) 400 Dyract AP-exp.X. For most compomers and composites. such as glass ionomers . 5 and 6. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 2458 450 Fuji IX-exp. 150 Solitaire-fit Tetric Ceram-exp. the best equation to describe their cumulative fluoride release was Eq. Fuji II LC Imp. As mentioned before. Cumulative Fluoride Release (µg/cm2) 400 Fuji IX-fit.exp. Ba–Al–fluorosilicate glass. Besides. which leads to the decrease in fluoride release. Correlation between the compressive strengths and fluoride release As we can see from Fig. high fluoride-releasing materials. For most glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. the filler particles in compomers and composites (typically a mixture of fumed silica. 300 Ketac-Molar-fit. Dyract AP-fit. Compoglass-fit. On the other hand.-fit 150 Vitremer-exp. 450 Compoglass-exp. which is in agreement with Verbeeck and co-workers [30]. 5. Ketac-Molar-exp. Miracle Mix-exp. This indicates that materials with high fluoride release have lower compressive strengths. and some high fluoridereleasing compomers (Compoglass) and composite (Solitaire). J. 100 Tetric Ceram -fit 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Time (day) Fig. in Table 4. Therefore. a negative linear correlation exists between the two properties (correlation coefficient r2 ¼ 0:7741). and ytterbium trifluoride) are usually less soluble than those (Ca–Al–F–silicate glass) in glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. F2000-fit. from glass ionomers to composite resins. (5).O. the best equation was Eq. 300 Hytac-exp. 250 Ariston-fit. 50 Ph Fil fi 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Time (day) Fig. when we move across the continuum. Curve fitting of cumulative fluoride release from compomers and composite resins. 100 Vitremer-fit Photac-Fil-exp. 350 F2000-exp. Xu. (3). Surefil-exp. 7. the resin contents of each class of materials increase and so do the compressive strengths. 5. 250 Ketac-Silver-exp. 200 Surefil-fit. 350 Miracle Mix-fit. Figs. Hytac-fit Ariston-exp. Solitaire-Exp. Curve fitting of cumulative fluoride release from glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. the barrier through which water and fluoride to diffuse also increases.. 200 Fuji II LC Imp. 6. Ketac-Silver-fit.

7. A linear correlation exists between the fluoride release and fluoride recharge capabilities (r2 ¼ 0:7088) as Fig. This indicates that only a superficial part of the sample has been recharged due to a short recharge time (1 min). resinmodified glass ionomers. J. Recently.O. Increasing recharge time may increase the amount of fluoride release after recharge by allowing more time for the fluoride to diffuse into the materials. and some compomers can serve as a fluoride reservoir and have higher recharge capabilities while composite resins have little recharge abilities. such as glass ionomers and resin modified glass ionomers. some studies indicated that Ariston could not bond properly with adhesives and tooth structures [34]. As mentioned above. However. r =0. the correlation coefficient is r2 ¼ 0:3244: The in vitro studies have indicated that Ariston can reduce secondary caries and inhibit enamel and dentin demineralization [31–33]. Ariston has been withdrawn from US market. 10 shows. glass ionomers. Obviously higher porosity will allow deeper diffusion of the recharge agent into the sample and result in a higher amount of fluoride storage and release. It releases a high amount of fluoride and also has a relatively high initial strength probably because of its alkaline glass filler. it is clinically impractical to increase the recharge time beyond a few minutes when applying a topical fluoride agent or fluoride-containing toothpaste to a patient. Fluoride Release Rate (µg/cm2/day) 25 20 Fuji IX Ketac-Molar Ketac-Silver 15 Miracle Mix Vitremer Fuji II LC Imp Photac Fil 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Time (day) Fig. Materials with less resin content. .86X. and resin-modified glass ionomers are not suitable clinically for load bearing area. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 a question. In general. Fluoride recharge profile of glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. Ariston is an exception. Correlation between compressive strength and fluoride release (excluding Ariston pHc). The porosity of the materials may have a great influence on the amount of fluoride released before and after recharge. Its clinic applicability remains 6. If Ariston is included. This indicates that the material with higher initial fluoride release also has a higher fluoriderecharge capability. 8. However. have higher Cumulative Fluoride Release (µg/cm 2) 500 Experimental Value Linear Regression 2 Y=547-1. Xu.7741 95% Confidence level 400 2459 300 200 100 0 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Compressive Strength (MPa) Fig.X. Fluoride recharge For all materials the fluoride release increase substantially 1 day after recharge but declines rapidly to the baseline level after 2–3 days.

Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 2460 25 F2000 Compoglass Fluoride Release Rate (µg/cm2/day) Dyract AP 20 Hytac Ariston Tetric 15 Solitaire Surefil 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Time (day) Fig. Correlation between fluoride release and recharge abilities.056X. Therefore. recharge. they may not be as durable clinically as lower fluoride-release materials. its mechanical properties are drastically deteriorated. Solitaire has recently been replaced by Solitaire 2. porosity. i. Glass ionomers and resinmodified glass ionomers have higher porosity and thus lower strength than compomers and composite resins. Some composite resin. Composite resin and some compomers (e. 9. they exhibit higher fluoride recharge capabilities. Therefore. Thus far.X. like Solitaire. the polymer matrices that have fluoride exchange capability are highly desirable [35–38]. Our study shows that its strength decreased about 48% after Current restorative materials with a high fluoride release generally have lower mechanical properties. and clinical durability for the high-caries-risk patients although compomers continue to develop and have increased fluoride release and mechanical properties. which does not contain soluble fluoride salt and therefore has improved mechanical properties.. The probable reason is that this material contains soluble strontium fluoride (SrF2) salt. Frequent external application of neutral fluoride is necessary to maintain the high fluoride release and provide protection against future carious attacks. usually release only a small amount of fluoride.7088 95% Confidence Level 30 25 20 15 10 5 7. Fluoride release from even the highest fluoride-releasing materials declines rapidly. resin-modified glass ionomers seem to offer the best balance of fluoride release. 10. r =0. high porosity has adverse effects on the mechanical properties.934+0. which cannot be dispersed homogeneously in the polymer matrix. it forms conglomerates. Fluoride Release in 3 days after Recharge (µg/cm2) 40 35 Experimental Value Linear Regression 2 Y=4. Xu. high . has initially high compressive strength and moderate fluoride release. though mechanically stronger. Materials that have high fluoride release.O.g. Conclusions 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 2 Cumulative Fluoride Release in 21 days (µg/cm ) Fig. On the other hand. storing in water for 2 months. Voids are left after the fluoride salt leaches out. Therefore. J.e. Hytac). In order to enhance the fluoride recharge capability without increasing porosity. particularly in loadbearing areas. Fluoride recharge profile of compomers and composite resins.

Effects of silane coupling agents on the fluoride release from experimental dental composites. Biomaterials 1981. A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional. Spets-Happonen S. In: Fejerskov O. 6:207–15. 12(Special Issue):S10–2. Mark LAM. Am J Dent 1999. capsulated system of a restorative glass-ionomer cement. Burgess JO. Fluoride-releasing liners: in vitro recurrent caries. Mechanism for erosion of glass-ionomer cements in an acidic buffer solution. [4] Jensen ME. J Dent Res 2002. Burgess JO. [32] Fontana M.159 (IADR Abstracts #431) 1999. Mjor from margins of amalgam. Vanherle G. Zimmerman BF. 72:577–81. Biomaterials 1998.67:145 (Abstr. Prevention of in vitro secondary caries with an experimental fluoride-exchanging resin.77:242 (AADR Abstract #1091). [33] Schiffner U.4:97–101.12:88–95. Gomez C. Jokinen J. IA.63:689–92.10:88–92.69:861–4. Fluoride release profiles of restorative glass-ionomer formulations. Arends J. J Dent Res 1984. [8] Ten Cate JM. The physico-mechanical consequences of exposing glass-ionomer cements to water during setting. The short-term fluoride release of a hand-mixed vs. Van Meerbeeck B. composite. Compendium 1997. [29] De Moor RJG.69:1175–9. Norling B. Erickson R. In vitro demineralization-remineralization of enamel caries at restoration margins utilizing fluoride-releasing composite resin. Sheth J.39:12–7. Winter GB. J. Martens LC. [24] Kuhn AT. [26] Tay WM.1: 382–405.6:431–3. Physicochemical aspects of fluoride-enamel interactions.15(10):1–5. Ong JL. Caries Res 1997.25:454–8.2:51–6. and glass-ionomer restorations.4:54–8.2:112–5. Xu. [14] Gladys S. J Dent Res 1997. Fluoride release and compressive strength of fluoride releasing materials. Matsuya S. 1988. De Moor RJG. Norling B. editors. [27] Verbeeck RMH. Caries Res 1991. [20] Ekstrand J. In Vitro evaluation of a ‘‘smart’’ dental material for its efficacy in preventing secondary caries using a microbial artificial mouth model. J Biomater Appl 1987. Silverstone LM. Rawls RH. Xu X. Am J Dent 1989. [38] Ding X. Hammesfahr PD. Fluoride in Dentistry.5:293–5. [25] Wilson AD.25:355–8. Lambrechts P. [5] Griffin F. Fluoride ion diffusion from polyalkenoate (glass-ionomer) cements. 76:833–95. ADEPT Rep 1998.78. De Maeyer EAP. microfiller and hybrid composite resin fillings. In vivo biocompatibility of an acrylic fluoride-releasing anion-exchange resin. . . [3] Donly KJ. editors. [13] Burgess JO. Appert C. Zimmerman KL. [19] DeSchepper ED. Inhibition of enamel and root dentin demineralization by Ariston pHc: artificial mouth study. Caries Res 1983. References [1] Zimmerman BF. Fluoride releasing materials. Dent Advisor 1998. p. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Anticariogenic potential of fluoride releasing restorative materials. De Moor RJG. Biomaterials 1985.44:357–67. A new material concept for inhibiting the formation of secondary caries. J Dent Res 1990. Fluoride in Dentistry. J Dent 1982. Ekstrand J. [21] Dijkman GEHM. Turpin-Mair JS. Biomaterials 1988. [17] Albers HF. IA. Verbeeck RMH. Ling L. Am J Dent 1992.X. Comparative physico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res 1999. Fluoride-exchanging resins for caries protection. Fluoride release process of (resin-modified) glass-ionomer cements versus (polyacid-modified) composite resins. [10] Forss H. [34] Personal communication with the manufacturer. [15] Burgess JO. The dissolution mechanisms of silicate and glass-ionomer dental cements.O. Van Even DFJ. 2461 [18] Xu X. Yamane M. Acta Odontol Scand 1986. Summitt JB. Jensen M. Kujn AT. Rawls HR. Braem M. Xu X.81:A255 (Abstract #1970). Esthet Dent Update 1993. Braden M. [30] Verbeeck RMH. Groffiman DM. Luoma H. Oper Dent 1985. De Maeyer EAP. Quint Int 1994. Am J Dent 1999. 252–72 [Chapter 14]. J Esthetic Dent 1994.27:117–23. Burt BA.19:509–19. 96. [2] Tysowsky G. Wefel JS. Featherston JDB. 5:41–52. excellent mechanical properties and bonding properties are highly desirable and will be the targets of future development. 2nd Edition. [22] Causton BE. Burgess JO. Thrasher MR. J Dent Res 1993. Advances in glass-ionomer material. The release of fluoride and other chemical species from a glass-ionomer cement. Fluoride-containing restoratives. Summitt JB. Dent Mater 1996.9:454–6. Thurmond BA. Gonzalez-Cabezas C. Trimpeneers LM. Zimmerman BF. [36] Rawls HR. Fluoride-releasing acrylics.12(Special Issue):S4–7.6:378–82. [11] Burgess JO. [37] Benton JB. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Donly KJ. Caries inhibition by fluoridereleasing liners.17:32–43. [28] Fukazawa M. J Dent Res 1988. [16] Xu X. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 recharge capability. p. J Dent Res 1998. Kuhn AT. Norling B. Gen Dent 1991. Orstavik D. Wilson AD.10: 333–41. J Appl Mater 1993. De Witte AMJC.17:731–48. Seppa L. J Dent Res 1990. Frequency of secondarycaries at various anatomical [6] Mjor locations. Rawls HR. [23] Cranfield M. [31] Heintz SD.12(Special Issue):S8–9. Wilson ME. Fejerskov O. Fluoride release and recharge of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. 257). 1996. Long term fluoride release of visible light-activated composites in vitro: a correlation with in situ demineralization data. . Antibacterial effects of glass ionomers. [12] Burgess JO. [35] Rawls HR. Querens AE. Mutans streptococci in plaque [9] Svanberg M. Directly placed esthetic restorative materials—the continuum. Resin ionomer restoration materials: the new generation. Factors relating to the rate of fluoride-ion release from glass-ionomer cement. Am J Dent 1999. Fluoride and mutans streptococci in plaque grown on glassionomer and composite. [7] Dijken JWV. Biomaterials 1985.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful