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.

SiO2. UDMA. HEMA. GI compatible monomers PAA.4. glyceryl dimethacrylate. MPAE. Al–F–silicate glass.2–1. TEGDMA Tetric Ceram Vivadent P-BisGMA.8 Composite 90 65 2–20 Composite 78 60 0.8 Compomer 5 Compomer Ca–Al–F–silicate glass 76 Ba–Al–F–silicate glass.6 Composite BisGMA. Ba–Al–F–silicate glass.X. tartaric acid. P-BisGMA. TEGDMA. bisphenol A glycidyl diacrylate.6 Resinmodified glass ionomer Compomer 3 Compomer 0. UDMA. YbF3 Alkaline glass. Ba–B–Al–F–silicate glass. tartaric acid. H2O.3 Composite 82 66 0. YbF3 73 56 84 47 81 Glass ionomer 79 59 1. and fluoride recharge profiles of 15 commercial fluoride-releasing materials across the continuum: conventional glass ionomers. SrF2 Ba–Al–F–silicate glass. H2O Poly(co-acrylic acid/ maleic acid). The clinic application of different fluoride-releasing materials will also be discussed. TEGDMA Surefil Solitaire Caulk/ Densply Kulzer Urethane-modified BisGMA Bis-GA. HEMA. triethylene glycol dimethacrylate. DCDMA. 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. YbF3. 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). a reaction product of butane tetracarboxylic acid and hydroxyl methyl methacrylate. TEGDMA DCDMA. glass. TiO2. Our hypotheses were (1) high fluoride-releasing materials have lower mechanical properties than low fluoride-releasing materials.O. 2. AgSnCu alloy Ca–Al–F–silicate glass Compoglass Vivadent F2000 3M ESPE Dyract AP Hytac Densply/ Caulk 3M ESPE Ariston pHc Vivadent BisGMA. Specimens The materials used in this study are listed in Table 1. urethane dimethacrylate. SrF2 Zn–Ca–Al–F–silicate glass. CDMA. Xu. fluoride release. In this study. Poly(co-acrylic acid/ maleic acid). 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. Materials and methods 2. microencapsulated redox catalysts Fluoroaluminosilicate glass 71 51 3 Resinmodified glass ionomer 76–77 25–26 5–7 Resinmodified glass ionomer 1. However. UDMA. polyacrylic acid. . TEGDMA CDMA oligomer GDMA TCB. P-BisGMA. The material was infused into the Teflon mold and pressed between two microscope glass slides. YbF3. sintered Ag 78–79 17–19 4–5 Cermet glass ionomer Fluoroaluminosilicate glass.1. propoxylated BisGMA. H2O HEMA. BisGA. cycloaliphatic dicarboxylic acid dimethacrylate.8 0. TCB. All cylindrical specimens (4 mm diameter and 9 mm height) of each material were prepared in a split Teflon mold following manufacturers’ directions. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 2452 recharged by using a topical fluoride agent or fluoridecontaining toothpaste. tartaric acid. (2) materials with high fluoride release have high fluoride recharge. fumed SiO2 Porous SiO2. H2O TEGDMA Ca–Al–F–silicate glass Ca–Al–F–silicate glass. compomers and composite resins. PAA. UDMA MPAE. resin-modified glass ionomers. Ba–glass. the authors will report the compressive strengths. dimethacrylate functional oligomer of citric acid. UDMA. H2O poly(acrylic-itaconic acid) with pendent methacrylate. mixed oxides Al–F–silicate glass 79 Sr–F–silicate glass. GDMA. H2O PAA. SiO2 Ba–B–Al–F–silicate. bisphenol A glycidyl dimethacrylate. hydroxyl ethyl methacrylate. UDMA Filler (vol%) Mean filler size (mm) Classification Glass ionomer Glass ionomer 73–74 23–24 4.4 4. J. the recharge varies widely among different classes of fluoride-releasing materials [18]. 23 (metal) 2–3 Ca–Al–F–silicate glass. methacrylated phosphoric acid esters. HEMA.

10. Figs.7 ml of each sample solution was pipetted into a clean plastic test tube. 7 demonstrates that a negative linear correlation exists between the compressive strengths and cumulative fluoride releases (correlation coefficient r2 ¼ 0:7741). each specimen was measured for its diameter and length to 0.) with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.010. The crosslinked polymer matrices in compomers and composite (typically copolymers of Bis-GMA.0 (SPSS Inc. Thermo-Orion) and Orion 920A PH/ISE meter (Thermo-Orion). 2453 sodium fluoride foaming solution (containing 2. 3 and 4. Fluoride recharge experiment Before recharge. Then the specimens were taken out of the Teflon mold and light cured 40 s on each cylindrical side surface. The TISAB was added to provide constant background ionic strength. 0.3 ml of TISAB III (Total ionic strength adjustment buffer) concentrate with CDTA (1.0. The linear regression and nonlinear curve fitting were performed using SigmaPlot 4. J. respectively. 2. Xu. However. 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. Results The compressive strengths of fluoride-releasing materials are in Table 2 and displayed in Fig. The materials with the same group letter have no significant difference. After curing. Ketac-Molar. 8 and 9 show the results of the fluoride recharge experiment. 2. Compressive strength experiment The specimens (n ¼ 10) were stored under 37 C for 24 h.00. Fig.2-cyclohexylenedinitrolotetraacetic acid) (Thermo-Orion) was added to each solution. 2. One of the reasons is that the resin contents of each class of materials increase in the same trend. Before measurement. The fluoride release profiles of the studied materials are shown in Figs.2. for example. decomplex fluoride.0% NaF) for one minute and rinsed with running deionized water for 1 min. Fluoride released from the specimens was measured daily for a total of 21 days using a fluoride ion selective electrode (model 96-09. see Discussion below) Figs. there are some exceptions for this trend. An Optilux 500 curing light (DenMat/Kerr) was used throughout the study. The instrument was calibrated each day with five standard fluoride solutions containing 0.5. has a higher compressive strength than some of resin-modified glass ionomers (Vitremer and . 10 shows. 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. The dimensions were used to calculate precisely the cross-section area and surface area. The best fitting equations for each material and its parameters are displayed in Table 4. all specimens were light-cured through the glass slides for 40 s on top and bottom surfaces. Each specimen was loaded in compression until failure using an Instron 4411 mechanical testing machine (Instron Co. Discussions 4. The data used are listed in Table 2 (except Ariston. 1. 1.01 mm with a MAX-CAL electronic digital caliper (Fowler & NSK). Recharge was repeated three times for each material. 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. to compomers and composite resins.O. and 100 ppm F. and adjust the solution pH. Fig.4. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 ionomers. Table 3 lists the equations used in curve fitting.100.. The concentration (ppm) of each solution was directly read out on the instrument display and printed out on a 900A printer (Thermo-Orion). 4. Data analysis The comparison of compressive strengths and fluoride release data was performed using ANOVA and Duncan test (a ¼ 0:05).3. The selfcuring specimens were allowed to set in the mold between the glass slides. and 0. Compressive strength was determined by dividing the failure load with the specimen cross-section area. 5 and 6 display the cumulative fluoride releases of each material as a function of time and their best-fitted curves. Compressive strengths As we move across the continuum from glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. Fluoride release from these recharged samples was measured daily for 4 days. UEDMA and TEGMA) generally have higher strength and toughness than the gel network formed by acid– base reaction in glass ionomers. 2. the compressive strengths generally increase. 2 shows the correlation between compressive strengths and the filler content (wt%) (r2 ¼ 0:2353). A linear correlation exists between the fluoride release and fluoride recharge capabilities (r2 ¼ 0:7088) as Fig. 2.1. Then the specimens were ‘‘recharged’’ by applying Oral-B Neutra-Foam 3.).

Calcium is the essential part of the glass filler particles in glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. F Release 300 250 200 150 100 50 M ira c Ke le M ta c. G H.2) 21 (1. The Ca–Al–F–silicate glass fillers are more soluble and weaker than those fillers used in composites that do not contain calcium. 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.) (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. Photac-Fil). In addition.O. Xu.X. but resin-modified glass ionomers generally have higher toughness and better esthetics than conventional glass ionomers.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 strengths and cumulative fluoride release (in 21 days) of fluoride-releasing materials.I. For the same type of materials. Filler load and composition may have significant influence on the mechanical properties. It initiates the reaction with the acids or polyacids to form crosslinked gel network. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 2454 Table 2 Compressive strengths and cumulative fluoride release of fluoride releasing materials Materials Classification Compressive strength (Std. H G. The composition of the fillers may be more important. which are not present in glass . H I a (22) (7.) (MPa) Ducan groupinga (a ¼ 0:05) Cumulative fluoride release in 21 Days (Std. F F. When comparing different type of materials. Dev. Dev. C C B B B. I A G.8) 51 (10) 8. As Table 1 shows. This partially contributes to the lower mechanical properties of glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. E A D C C E. C D D E E F F E F 398 (32) 318 (47) 160 (10) 132 (75) 374 (6. Compressive Strength (MPa) and Cumulative Fluoride Release (µg/cm2) 450 400 Compressive Strength 350 Cum. however. 1. Resin modified G.I. the relationship becomes complicated.0 (2.6) 162 (11) 230 (11) 198 (14) 108 (8. composite resins often contain hard.4) 80 (4. insoluble silica (SiO2) particles. 2 shows a poor correlation between the compressive strength and the filler wt% (r2 ¼ 0:2353).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 . mechanical properties generally increase with the increase of the filler load. J.I. Fig.0) A B D D. 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.0) 422 (35) 51 (2. Resin modified G. fluoroaluminosilicate glass is the major component of the filler in all fluoride-releasing materials in this study.

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

Therefore the direct bactericidal effect of fluoride released from restorative materials is very limited and is due to combination of fluoride and acidity. [19] reported that 20 part per million. bacteria and plaque accumulate on the restorations. Also based on the manufacturer’s information. 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. Naturally occurring fluoride at concentrations as high as 21 mg/ml do not produce any obvious effects on the composition of supragingival plaque. Fluoride release kinetics The kinetics and mechanism of the fluoride release process of fluoride-releasing materials. For example. 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. 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).8 mm. 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. J. but also release calcium and phosphate ions.X. have been extensively studied. We believe that the more important effect of fluoride is remineralization of enamel and dentin. It not only releases high amount of fluoride. [21] have demonstrated that enamel demineralization decreased as fluoride release from a composite resin restorative material increased. The question still remains however. No glass ionomers maintains its acidity for periods past 48 h. Xu. Table 3 Equations describing the fluoride release kinetics Equation no. A more detailed study of bactericidal effect and remineralization effect of fluoride is beyond the scope of this article. particularly glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. Dijkman et al. the authors concluded that a composite releasing 200–300 mg/cm2 fluoride over a 1-month period would completely inhibit secondary caries.20] [21] [22] [24] [25] is more soluble under lower pH conditions. 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. Reducing the filler particle size can increase fluoride release because smaller particles have larger surface areas. this question has not had a definite answer yet. how much fluoride release from restorative materials is enough to inhibit recurrent or secondary caries? While important clinically. 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. with time. Because fluoride releasing materials release reduced amounts of fluoride and other ions.O. 4. By extrapolating data. and several equations have been suggested to describe the cumulative fluoride release as a . Dyract has a mean particle size 2. Dyract AP has higher fluoride release as well as higher compressive strength than Dyract [16. DeSchepper et al. Fluoride release profile of compomers and composite resins.3. As a result.4 mm while Dyract AP has a mean particle size 0.17]. 4.

33299 0.9940878 7.49618 0.2059 0.999149 3.10 0.656 0. J.9989835 0.5791 0.380 5.3045 0. Verbeeck and co-workers [27.O.990956 13.27 24.998612 18. (3) Eq.996566 24.5616 0.11 0.031 2.082 456.786 2.998777 8.07 3 Compoglass r2 N 0. (5) was best for compomers and composite resins. which have been used by other researchers [23.999925 6.0144 0. Tay [26] used Eq. Wilson and co-workers proposed the wellknown equation (No.999127 3.4200 5 Fuji II LC Imp.880 310.997139 7.92 0.999043 3.2339 0.140 2.999268 3.999248 11.997004 6.4603 0.993989 31.980646 1.12328 3 Tetric Ceram r2 N 0.X.86127 3 Ariston r2 N 0.8471 0.999002 7. (2) Eq.999839 1.03692 0.5129 0.9994285 0.5167 0. function of time [22–28].984027 30.999517 7.71985 0.4831 0.999630 8.996724 27.9993948 0. (1) Eq.0021 0.4161 0.999410 3.30] proposed Eqs.994528 100.995800 43.088 29.987785 20.230 0.80407 0.824 2.36055 0.999800 7.049 27.815 28.990748 5. 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.25 2.01589 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 33.998988 7.82 29.10 4.984022 34.654639 0.999949 2.3357 2 Miracle Mix r2 N 0.043 29.53 5. 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. Those equations are listed in Table 3.7071 0.999289 3.183217 0.999890 1.223 0.999280 12.64 4.996717 16.997919 6.690 33.4353 0.999967 2.999770 5. (2) to describe the fluoride release of glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers.999840 4. Xu.40 0. Fuji IX 2 r N 0.999513 0.183217 4.2897 3 Vitremer r2 N 0.00 98.3084 0.997444 22. They concluded [30] that Eq.5505 0.999831 3.932 29.140 7.997650 6.999610 0.999564 2.4224 5 Solitaire r2 N 0.9973767 1.999610 0.4054 0.1445 0.999825 0.5651 3 Dyract AP r2 N 0. The adequacy of these equations was determined based on the correlation coefficient (r2 ) and normalized residuals or norm (N). the better the fitting). The results are shown . r2 N 0.940 188. 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. The authors used the SigmaPlot curve fitter (SPSS.5764 0.999931 1. 5 0.745 63.970003 1.993686 44.999497 6.5651 0.159 0.999171 3.70 0.999595 10.5384 0.999939 0.999945 3.2836 0.47515 0.999474 5.999391 3.28].6195 0.4747 3 Ketac-Silver r2 N 0. (3)–(5) and used them to describe wide range of materials.2761 0.7323 0.999327 3.564 3 Photac-Fil r2 N 0.2622 0.984465 6. (4) Eq.998977 9.999733 2.37E-08 11.23E-10 r2 is correlation coefficient and N is normalized residuals (norm) (The smaller the N.997925 12.6474 0.465 107.649 22.999477 3.999750 19.59 0. whereas Eq.4000 0.996690 20.999415 3.86 0.996477 63.03692 0. (5) Best eq.999417 3.9187 0.33299 0.990834 11.3705 0.62541 5 Hytac r2 N 0.996260 19.517 5.70309 0. The best values of r2 and N are displayed in bold.2466 0.206 65.19228 0.0106 0.9545 5 Surefil r2 N 0.4101 3 Ketac-Molar r2 N 0.973497 23.90 0.45 248.20239 0.5505 0.998871 9.8505 0.) to apply these equations to the experimental data.536 188.7053 0.0286 0.11 0.63618 0.121 7.0432 0. 1 in Table 3).1174 5 F2000 r2 N 0. Co.4388 0.993 51.6169 0.29.033 1.92673 0.90 11. (4) was best for glass ionomers whether resinmodified or not.

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

O. Materials with less resin content.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. In general.86X. A linear correlation exists between the fluoride release and fluoride recharge capabilities (r2 ¼ 0:7088) as Fig. 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. This indicates that the material with higher initial fluoride release also has a higher fluoriderecharge capability. 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]. 10 shows. r =0. 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. 8. This indicates that only a superficial part of the sample has been recharged due to a short recharge time (1 min). Recently. However. and some compomers can serve as a fluoride reservoir and have higher recharge capabilities while composite resins have little recharge abilities. Its clinic applicability remains 6. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 a question. If Ariston is included. Ariston is an exception. such as glass ionomers and resin modified glass ionomers. have higher Cumulative Fluoride Release (µg/cm 2) 500 Experimental Value Linear Regression 2 Y=547-1. Xu. . J. 7. 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. It releases a high amount of fluoride and also has a relatively high initial strength probably because of its alkaline glass filler.X. The porosity of the materials may have a great influence on the amount of fluoride released before and after recharge. resinmodified glass ionomers. As mentioned above. Ariston has been withdrawn from US market. Correlation between compressive strength and fluoride release (excluding Ariston pHc). some studies indicated that Ariston could not bond properly with adhesives and tooth structures [34]. glass ionomers. However. 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 recharge profile of glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. 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 resin-modified glass ionomers are not suitable clinically for load bearing area.

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

[36] Rawls HR. Physicochemical aspects of fluoride-enamel interactions. Norling B. Seppa L. Spets-Happonen S. In Vitro evaluation of a ‘‘smart’’ dental material for its efficacy in preventing secondary caries using a microbial artificial mouth model.10: 333–41. Wilson ME. Gen Dent 1991. In vitro demineralization-remineralization of enamel caries at restoration margins utilizing fluoride-releasing composite resin. Am J Dent 1992. J Dent Res 1990. Fluoride release and compressive strength of fluoride releasing materials. microfiller and hybrid composite resin fillings. Xu X. . Jensen M. Summitt JB. Prevention of in vitro secondary caries with an experimental fluoride-exchanging resin. [12] Burgess JO. Xu. Caries inhibition by fluoridereleasing liners. Querens AE. Wefel JS.77:242 (AADR Abstract #1091). [16] Xu X. De Moor RJG. Rawls RH.X. 252–72 [Chapter 14]. Fluoride release process of (resin-modified) glass-ionomer cements versus (polyacid-modified) composite resins. [28] Fukazawa M. Mechanism for erosion of glass-ionomer cements in an acidic buffer solution. Yamane M. Caries Res 1991. Burgess JO. Burgess JO. J Dent Res 1997. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.78. Zimmerman KL.4:97–101. Gomez C.159 (IADR Abstracts #431) 1999. 12(Special Issue):S10–2. In: Fejerskov O. Braem M. Anticariogenic potential of fluoride releasing restorative materials.67:145 (Abstr.63:689–92. Braden M. Resin ionomer restoration materials: the new generation. Fejerskov O. [34] Personal communication with the manufacturer. Xu X.39:12–7. The physico-mechanical consequences of exposing glass-ionomer cements to water during setting. Thrasher MR. Caries Res 1983. p. [26] Tay WM. Am J Dent 1999. [21] Dijkman GEHM. De Moor RJG.17:731–48. [35] Rawls HR.2:112–5. A new material concept for inhibiting the formation of secondary caries. J Dent Res 2002. 257). [24] Kuhn AT. ADEPT Rep 1998. [31] Heintz SD.9:454–6. Mark LAM. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 recharge capability. Dent Mater 1996. Oper Dent 1985.12(Special Issue):S4–7. [10] Forss H. J Biomater Appl 1987. Jokinen J. and glass-ionomer restorations. Silverstone LM. editors. [33] Schiffner U. Ling L. Luoma H. [11] Burgess JO. Turpin-Mair JS. Lambrechts P. Fluoride-releasing liners: in vitro recurrent caries.69:861–4. Fluoride release profiles of restorative glass-ionomer formulations. Factors relating to the rate of fluoride-ion release from glass-ionomer cement. Verbeeck RMH. Winter GB. IA. Fluoride in Dentistry. The dissolution mechanisms of silicate and glass-ionomer dental cements. capsulated system of a restorative glass-ionomer cement. Gonzalez-Cabezas C.17:32–43.25:355–8. 1996. Wilson AD. Biomaterials 1981. J Dent Res 1999. Sheth J. Arends J.27:117–23. Antibacterial effects of glass ionomers. 1988. Erickson R. Hammesfahr PD. excellent mechanical properties and bonding properties are highly desirable and will be the targets of future development. Rawls HR.4:54–8. Inhibition of enamel and root dentin demineralization by Ariston pHc: artificial mouth study. Van Meerbeeck B. Van Even DFJ. De Maeyer EAP. Compendium 1997. [25] Wilson AD. Biomaterials 1985.12:88–95. Groffiman DM.1: 382–405. Esthet Dent Update 1993. Donly KJ. Fluoride ion diffusion from polyalkenoate (glass-ionomer) cements. [19] DeSchepper ED. Comparative physico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. 2nd Edition. [4] Jensen ME. Biomaterials 1998. [23] Cranfield M. Kuhn AT.15(10):1–5. [32] Fontana M. Ekstrand J.12(Special Issue):S8–9. IA. 5:41–52. In vivo biocompatibility of an acrylic fluoride-releasing anion-exchange resin. J Dent Res 1990. Matsuya S. Appert C. [3] Donly KJ. 6:207–15. J Dent 1982. [7] Dijken JWV. [17] Albers HF. Burt BA. [29] De Moor RJG. J Esthetic Dent 1994. [5] Griffin F. Rawls HR. [8] Ten Cate JM. Biomaterials 1988. 72:577–81. .6:378–82. Featherston JDB. J Dent Res 1993. Am J Dent 1999. Fluoride and mutans streptococci in plaque grown on glassionomer and composite. . Zimmerman BF. Kujn AT. 96.6:431–3. Ong JL. [2] Tysowsky G. Fluoride releasing materials. [14] Gladys S. Directly placed esthetic restorative materials—the continuum. editors.19:509–19. The short-term fluoride release of a hand-mixed vs. [15] Burgess JO.44:357–67. The release of fluoride and other chemical species from a glass-ionomer cement. References [1] Zimmerman BF. Fluoride-exchanging resins for caries protection. Am J Dent 1989. [13] Burgess JO. Summitt JB. 76:833–95. De Witte AMJC. Advances in glass-ionomer material. Frequency of secondarycaries at various anatomical [6] Mjor locations. [27] Verbeeck RMH. Mjor from margins of amalgam. De Maeyer EAP. [37] Benton JB.81:A255 (Abstract #1970). Martens LC. Acta Odontol Scand 1986. Effects of silane coupling agents on the fluoride release from experimental dental composites. Quint Int 1994. J. Thurmond BA. J Appl Mater 1993. 2461 [18] Xu X. Burgess JO. J Dent Res 1984. Caries Res 1997. Fluoride release and recharge of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Fluoride-releasing acrylics.69:1175–9. Mutans streptococci in plaque [9] Svanberg M. Trimpeneers LM. composite. Orstavik D. J Dent Res 1998.10:88–92. Vanherle G.O. [22] Causton BE. Am J Dent 1999. Zimmerman BF. [30] Verbeeck RMH. Biomaterials 1985. Long term fluoride release of visible light-activated composites in vitro: a correlation with in situ demineralization data. A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional. Norling B. Dent Advisor 1998. [20] Ekstrand J. J Dent Res 1988.5:293–5. p.2:51–6. Norling B. Fluoride in Dentistry. [38] Ding X. Fluoride-containing restoratives.25:454–8.