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

Abstract
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: xxu@lsuhsc.edu (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
releases.
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.
doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00638-5

2–1. tartaric acid.4. In this study. HEMA. YbF3 Alkaline glass. H2O. 23 (metal) 2–3 Ca–Al–F–silicate glass. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 2452 recharged by using a topical fluoride agent or fluoridecontaining toothpaste. YbF3 73 56 84 47 81 Glass ionomer 79 59 1.O. hydroxyl ethyl methacrylate.8 Composite 90 65 2–20 Composite 78 60 0. tartaric acid. glyceryl dimethacrylate. P-BisGMA. TEGDMA Tetric Ceram Vivadent P-BisGMA. fluoride release. TCB. Specimens The materials used in this study are listed in Table 1.8 Compomer 5 Compomer Ca–Al–F–silicate glass 76 Ba–Al–F–silicate glass. SiO2. Ba–B–Al–F–silicate glass. H2O poly(acrylic-itaconic acid) with pendent methacrylate. TiO2. HEMA. UDMA. and fluoride recharge profiles of 15 commercial fluoride-releasing materials across the continuum: conventional glass ionomers.6 Composite BisGMA. H2O TEGDMA Ca–Al–F–silicate glass Ca–Al–F–silicate glass. a reaction product of butane tetracarboxylic acid and hydroxyl methyl methacrylate. PAA. bisphenol A glycidyl dimethacrylate.3 Composite 82 66 0. dimethacrylate functional oligomer of citric acid. GDMA. P-BisGMA. Ba–Al–F–silicate glass. mixed oxides Al–F–silicate glass 79 Sr–F–silicate glass. MPAE. The material was infused into the Teflon mold and pressed between two microscope glass slides. polyacrylic acid. the authors will report the compressive strengths. Ba–glass. bisphenol A glycidyl diacrylate. 2. UDMA MPAE. TEGDMA DCDMA. UDMA. urethane dimethacrylate. Our hypotheses were (1) high fluoride-releasing materials have lower mechanical properties than low fluoride-releasing materials. YbF3. SiO2 Ba–B–Al–F–silicate. fumed SiO2 Porous SiO2. propoxylated BisGMA. However. tartaric acid.8 0. resin-modified glass ionomers. cycloaliphatic dicarboxylic acid dimethacrylate. TEGDMA CDMA oligomer GDMA TCB.4 4. CDMA. sintered Ag 78–79 17–19 4–5 Cermet glass ionomer Fluoroaluminosilicate glass. the recharge varies widely among different classes of fluoride-releasing materials [18].6 Resinmodified glass ionomer Compomer 3 Compomer 0. J. 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. TEGDMA Surefil Solitaire Caulk/ Densply Kulzer Urethane-modified BisGMA Bis-GA. The clinic application of different fluoride-releasing materials will also be discussed. AgSnCu alloy Ca–Al–F–silicate glass Compoglass Vivadent F2000 3M ESPE Dyract AP Hytac Densply/ Caulk 3M ESPE Ariston pHc Vivadent BisGMA. UDMA Filler (vol%) Mean filler size (mm) Classification Glass ionomer Glass ionomer 73–74 23–24 4. YbF3. Materials and methods 2. . 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. 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). microencapsulated redox catalysts Fluoroaluminosilicate glass 71 51 3 Resinmodified glass ionomer 76–77 25–26 5–7 Resinmodified glass ionomer 1. H2O PAA. H2O HEMA. Al–F–silicate glass.X. (2) materials with high fluoride release have high fluoride recharge. BisGA. TEGDMA. UDMA. 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. SrF2 Ba–Al–F–silicate glass. SrF2 Zn–Ca–Al–F–silicate glass. triethylene glycol dimethacrylate. Xu. glass. HEMA.1. H2O Poly(co-acrylic acid/ maleic acid). methacrylated phosphoric acid esters. GI compatible monomers PAA. UDMA. compomers and composite resins.

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. Fluoride recharge experiment Before recharge.2-cyclohexylenedinitrolotetraacetic acid) (Thermo-Orion) was added to each solution. Discussions 4. The instrument was calibrated each day with five standard fluoride solutions containing 0.X. the compressive strengths generally increase. The materials with the same group letter have no significant difference. Compressive strength experiment The specimens (n ¼ 10) were stored under 37 C for 24 h. 2. 4. After curing. Compressive strength was determined by dividing the failure load with the specimen cross-section area.) with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.100. has a higher compressive strength than some of resin-modified glass ionomers (Vitremer and . An Optilux 500 curing light (DenMat/Kerr) was used throughout the study. 10.00. The best fitting equations for each material and its parameters are displayed in Table 4. The concentration (ppm) of each solution was directly read out on the instrument display and printed out on a 900A printer (Thermo-Orion).. 0.3 ml of TISAB III (Total ionic strength adjustment buffer) concentrate with CDTA (1. 2. Results The compressive strengths of fluoride-releasing materials are in Table 2 and displayed in Fig. to compomers and composite resins. for example. The data used are listed in Table 2 (except Ariston. 1. each specimen was measured for its diameter and length to 0. Figs. see Discussion below) Figs. Fig.010. Ketac-Molar. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 ionomers. 8 and 9 show the results of the fluoride recharge experiment. 5 and 6 display the cumulative fluoride releases of each material as a function of time and their best-fitted curves. Fluoride released from the specimens was measured daily for a total of 21 days using a fluoride ion selective electrode (model 96-09.0. Then the specimens were taken out of the Teflon mold and light cured 40 s on each cylindrical side surface. all specimens were light-cured through the glass slides for 40 s on top and bottom surfaces. The linear regression and nonlinear curve fitting were performed using SigmaPlot 4.01 mm with a MAX-CAL electronic digital caliper (Fowler & NSK). Each specimen was loaded in compression until failure using an Instron 4411 mechanical testing machine (Instron Co. 2.4. 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. Recharge was repeated three times for each material. UEDMA and TEGMA) generally have higher strength and toughness than the gel network formed by acid– base reaction in glass ionomers. 2453 sodium fluoride foaming solution (containing 2. Fluoride release from these recharged samples was measured daily for 4 days. 7 demonstrates that a negative linear correlation exists between the compressive strengths and cumulative fluoride releases (correlation coefficient r2 ¼ 0:7741). 2. The fluoride release profiles of the studied materials are shown in Figs. 2 shows the correlation between compressive strengths and the filler content (wt%) (r2 ¼ 0:2353).0 (SPSS Inc. and 0. Compressive strengths As we move across the continuum from glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. 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. J. One of the reasons is that the resin contents of each class of materials increase in the same trend. decomplex fluoride.7 ml of each sample solution was pipetted into a clean plastic test tube. 2.2. Then the specimens were ‘‘recharged’’ by applying Oral-B Neutra-Foam 3. Before measurement. there are some exceptions for this trend. respectively. 1. Xu. Data analysis The comparison of compressive strengths and fluoride release data was performed using ANOVA and Duncan test (a ¼ 0:05).0% NaF) for one minute and rinsed with running deionized water for 1 min.3. 3 and 4. The crosslinked polymer matrices in compomers and composite (typically copolymers of Bis-GMA. 10 shows. The TISAB was added to provide constant background ionic strength. The selfcuring specimens were allowed to set in the mold between the glass slides.O. However.1. The dimensions were used to calculate precisely the cross-section area and surface area. Fig. and adjust the solution pH. and 100 ppm F.). Thermo-Orion) and Orion 920A PH/ISE meter (Thermo-Orion). Table 3 lists the equations used in curve fitting. A linear correlation exists between the fluoride release and fluoride recharge capabilities (r2 ¼ 0:7088) as Fig.5.

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

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

[19] reported that 20 part per million.17]. As a result. Therefore the direct bactericidal effect of fluoride released from restorative materials is very limited and is due to combination of fluoride and acidity. For example. [21] have demonstrated that enamel demineralization decreased as fluoride release from a composite resin restorative material increased. Reducing the filler particle size can increase fluoride release because smaller particles have larger surface areas. Fluoride release kinetics The kinetics and mechanism of the fluoride release process of fluoride-releasing materials.X. Because fluoride releasing materials release reduced amounts of fluoride and other ions. Table 3 Equations describing the fluoride release kinetics Equation no. Dijkman et al. We believe that the more important effect of fluoride is remineralization of enamel and dentin. No glass ionomers maintains its acidity for periods past 48 h. with time. J. bacteria and plaque accumulate on the restorations. 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. DeSchepper et al. The question still remains however. and several equations have been suggested to describe the cumulative fluoride release as a . Fluoride release profile of compomers and composite resins.3. Dyract has a mean particle size 2. Naturally occurring fluoride at concentrations as high as 21 mg/ml do not produce any obvious effects on the composition of supragingival plaque. 4. but also release calcium and phosphate ions. have been extensively studied. Also based on the manufacturer’s information. 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.8 mm. It not only releases high amount of fluoride. A more detailed study of bactericidal effect and remineralization effect of fluoride is beyond the scope of this article. 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. particularly glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers.4 mm while Dyract AP has a mean particle size 0. Xu.20] [21] [22] [24] [25] is more soluble under lower pH conditions. 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. the authors concluded that a composite releasing 200–300 mg/cm2 fluoride over a 1-month period would completely inhibit secondary caries. 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). Dyract AP has higher fluoride release as well as higher compressive strength than Dyract [16. 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.O. By extrapolating data. 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. 4.

(3)–(5) and used them to describe wide range of materials.37E-08 11.996260 19.999289 3.3357 2 Miracle Mix r2 N 0.29. (4) Eq. The results are shown .4161 0. Fuji IX 2 r N 0.999391 3.4000 0.999733 2.880 310.140 2.45 248.995800 43.8505 0.996477 63.997004 6.0286 0.998977 9.786 2.206 65. 5 0.64 4.998871 9.999750 19.999967 2.90 11. Xu. The adequacy of these equations was determined based on the correlation coefficient (r2 ) and normalized residuals or norm (N).62541 5 Hytac r2 N 0.25 2.11 0.4054 0.5651 0.2897 3 Vitremer r2 N 0.0144 0.9994285 0.5791 0.80407 0.9973767 1.00 98.993 51.999831 3.63618 0.5167 0.82 29.999825 0.4101 3 Ketac-Molar r2 N 0.997444 22.649 22.2466 0.86127 3 Ariston r2 N 0.654639 0.999477 3.999002 7.9989835 0.999890 1.2059 0.049 27.20239 0.0106 0.999043 3.999517 7. which have been used by other researchers [23.28]. J.3084 0.033 1.997919 6.999945 3.4224 5 Solitaire r2 N 0.999280 12.984465 6.999171 3.5129 0. the better the fitting).380 5.30] proposed Eqs.2622 0.996690 20.8471 0.999770 5.999474 5.70309 0.47515 0.998777 8. Those equations are listed in Table 3.9545 5 Surefil r2 N 0. (4) was best for glass ionomers whether resinmodified or not.3045 0.86 0.6195 0.656 0.0021 0.043 29.4200 5 Fuji II LC Imp.999925 6.999931 1.996724 27.19228 0. 1 in Table 3). Co.7323 0.970003 1.33299 0.2761 0.6474 0.999415 3.980646 1.999127 3. 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.223 0.4747 3 Ketac-Silver r2 N 0.999564 2.940 188.999497 6. (2) to describe the fluoride release of glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers. 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.27 24.996566 24.993686 44.999410 3.1174 5 F2000 r2 N 0.90 0.984022 34.5384 0. (5) Best eq.994528 100.998612 18.993989 31.082 456.5505 0.824 2.997139 7.990834 11.92673 0. The best values of r2 and N are displayed in bold.36055 0.40 0.932 29.0432 0.) to apply these equations to the experimental data.6169 0.O. (5) was best for compomers and composite resins. Wilson and co-workers proposed the wellknown equation (No. r2 N 0.4603 0.999610 0.03692 0.999630 8.564 3 Photac-Fil r2 N 0.999417 3.984027 30. The authors used the SigmaPlot curve fitter (SPSS.70 0.999248 11.11 0.3705 0.999949 2.996717 16. They concluded [30] that Eq.7071 0.999327 3.031 2.536 188.999149 3.999800 7.49618 0.59 0.71985 0.10 0.815 28.4353 0.X.230 0.5651 3 Dyract AP r2 N 0.973497 23. (2) Eq.03692 0. (3) Eq.517 5.4831 0.183217 0.5764 0.5616 0.999595 10.987785 20. Tay [26] used Eq.9187 0.1445 0.140 7.999610 0. Verbeeck and co-workers [27.9993948 0.01589 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 33.23E-10 r2 is correlation coefficient and N is normalized residuals (norm) (The smaller the N.12328 3 Tetric Ceram r2 N 0.33299 0. (1) Eq.9940878 7.5505 0.159 0.07 3 Compoglass r2 N 0.999839 1. whereas Eq.121 7.999513 0.999268 3.997925 12.990748 5.998988 7.088 29.183217 4.997650 6.690 33.999939 0. 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.2339 0.10 4.990956 13.465 107.745 63.999840 4.4388 0.7053 0.92 0.53 5. function of time [22–28].2836 0.

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

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

particularly in loadbearing areas. Our study shows that its strength decreased about 48% after Current restorative materials with a high fluoride release generally have lower mechanical properties.. Voids are left after the fluoride salt leaches out.O. Composite resin and some compomers (e. usually release only a small amount of fluoride. high .934+0. Frequent external application of neutral fluoride is necessary to maintain the high fluoride release and provide protection against future carious attacks. Fluoride Release in 3 days after Recharge (µg/cm2) 40 35 Experimental Value Linear Regression 2 Y=4. though mechanically stronger. porosity. Fluoride release from even the highest fluoride-releasing materials declines rapidly. In order to enhance the fluoride recharge capability without increasing porosity. On the other hand.056X. Xu.X. storing in water for 2 months. its mechanical properties are drastically deteriorated. like Solitaire. Solitaire has recently been replaced by Solitaire 2. Therefore. Glass ionomers and resinmodified glass ionomers have higher porosity and thus lower strength than compomers and composite resins. they may not be as durable clinically as lower fluoride-release materials. Correlation between fluoride release and recharge abilities. Therefore. Thus far. which cannot be dispersed homogeneously in the polymer matrix. i. has initially high compressive strength and moderate fluoride release. 10. r =0.7088 95% Confidence Level 30 25 20 15 10 5 7. Some composite resin. The probable reason is that this material contains soluble strontium fluoride (SrF2) salt. Fluoride recharge profile of compomers and composite resins. Materials that have high fluoride release. and clinical durability for the high-caries-risk patients although compomers continue to develop and have increased fluoride release and mechanical properties. they exhibit higher fluoride recharge capabilities. it forms conglomerates.g. 9.e. resin-modified glass ionomers seem to offer the best balance of fluoride release. recharge. the polymer matrices that have fluoride exchange capability are highly desirable [35–38]. Hytac). 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. high porosity has adverse effects on the mechanical properties. which does not contain soluble fluoride salt and therefore has improved mechanical properties. Therefore. Conclusions 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 2 Cumulative Fluoride Release in 21 days (µg/cm ) Fig. J.

[24] Kuhn AT. Luoma H. [22] Causton BE. Rawls HR.81:A255 (Abstract #1970). 2nd Edition. Ekstrand J. Sheth J. Acta Odontol Scand 1986.39:12–7. 1988. Mjor from margins of amalgam. editors. De Moor RJG. [19] DeSchepper ED. [25] Wilson AD. Matsuya S. ADEPT Rep 1998. [16] Xu X. Inhibition of enamel and root dentin demineralization by Ariston pHc: artificial mouth study. Fluoride ion diffusion from polyalkenoate (glass-ionomer) cements. [17] Albers HF. De Witte AMJC. 6:207–15.77:242 (AADR Abstract #1091). Rawls HR. Jokinen J. J Dent Res 1998.17:731–48. Winter GB. Frequency of secondarycaries at various anatomical [6] Mjor locations. Arends J. Caries Res 1991. 12(Special Issue):S10–2.69:1175–9. Biomaterials 1981.25:454–8. Burgess JO. Gen Dent 1991. Xu. Biomaterials 1988. Anticariogenic potential of fluoride releasing restorative materials. Oper Dent 1985. J Dent Res 2002. [30] Verbeeck RMH. Wilson ME. 252–72 [Chapter 14]. Donly KJ. Fluoride-releasing liners: in vitro recurrent caries. The release of fluoride and other chemical species from a glass-ionomer cement. Orstavik D.12(Special Issue):S8–9.12:88–95.44:357–67. 96. [10] Forss H. 2461 [18] Xu X. Am J Dent 1999. Burgess JO. capsulated system of a restorative glass-ionomer cement. Erickson R. Featherston JDB. Physicochemical aspects of fluoride-enamel interactions. Jensen M. Martens LC. [36] Rawls HR. De Maeyer EAP. Dent Mater 1996. IA. Yamane M. Caries Res 1997.9:454–6. microfiller and hybrid composite resin fillings.17:32–43. Caries inhibition by fluoridereleasing liners. J Appl Mater 1993. Burgess / Biomaterials 24 (2003) 2451–2461 recharge capability. [11] Burgess JO. J Dent Res 1984. J Dent 1982. J Esthetic Dent 1994. Wefel JS. Spets-Happonen S. . [34] Personal communication with the manufacturer. De Maeyer EAP. Comparative physico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. excellent mechanical properties and bonding properties are highly desirable and will be the targets of future development. Esthet Dent Update 1993. [21] Dijkman GEHM. Directly placed esthetic restorative materials—the continuum. Groffiman DM. A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional.X.4:54–8.27:117–23.69:861–4. References [1] Zimmerman BF. [33] Schiffner U. Seppa L. 257). Hammesfahr PD. Ong JL. Biomaterials 1985. In vivo biocompatibility of an acrylic fluoride-releasing anion-exchange resin. [28] Fukazawa M.2:112–5.1: 382–405. Fejerskov O. Compendium 1997. Burt BA.159 (IADR Abstracts #431) 1999. Xu X. [5] Griffin F. Thrasher MR. J Dent Res 1999. The physico-mechanical consequences of exposing glass-ionomer cements to water during setting. 1996. Antibacterial effects of glass ionomers.5:293–5. Caries Res 1983. Gomez C. Fluoride in Dentistry. Turpin-Mair JS. [29] De Moor RJG. Fluoride in Dentistry. editors. J Dent Res 1990. Long term fluoride release of visible light-activated composites in vitro: a correlation with in situ demineralization data. J Dent Res 1990. Wilson AD.10: 333–41. Lambrechts P. 72:577–81. Fluoride release and recharge of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. p.6:378–82. Mutans streptococci in plaque [9] Svanberg M. p. Am J Dent 1989. [23] Cranfield M. Summitt JB. [13] Burgess JO. composite. Zimmerman KL. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Querens AE. Factors relating to the rate of fluoride-ion release from glass-ionomer cement. [26] Tay WM. [2] Tysowsky G. Braden M. . In: Fejerskov O. Dent Advisor 1998. [38] Ding X. [20] Ekstrand J.15(10):1–5. Xu X.67:145 (Abstr. [37] Benton JB. Fluoride and mutans streptococci in plaque grown on glassionomer and composite. [4] Jensen ME. 5:41–52. Thurmond BA. 76:833–95. A new material concept for inhibiting the formation of secondary caries. Mechanism for erosion of glass-ionomer cements in an acidic buffer solution. [12] Burgess JO. Resin ionomer restoration materials: the new generation. Rawls RH. De Moor RJG. Mark LAM. [27] Verbeeck RMH. Biomaterials 1985. Prevention of in vitro secondary caries with an experimental fluoride-exchanging resin. Am J Dent 1992. and glass-ionomer restorations. [32] Fontana M. Burgess JO. Quint Int 1994.78.4:97–101. Van Meerbeeck B. J Dent Res 1993. Fluoride releasing materials. Van Even DFJ. [7] Dijken JWV. [15] Burgess JO. Advances in glass-ionomer material. Verbeeck RMH. Fluoride release profiles of restorative glass-ionomer formulations. [31] Heintz SD. Trimpeneers LM. Zimmerman BF. Kuhn AT. Norling B. Zimmerman BF. Fluoride release and compressive strength of fluoride releasing materials.12(Special Issue):S4–7. J Dent Res 1988. J Dent Res 1997. Vanherle G.10:88–92. In Vitro evaluation of a ‘‘smart’’ dental material for its efficacy in preventing secondary caries using a microbial artificial mouth model. Ling L. IA. Biomaterials 1998. J Biomater Appl 1987.19:509–19. [8] Ten Cate JM.2:51–6. Norling B. Gonzalez-Cabezas C. Am J Dent 1999. Fluoride-releasing acrylics. [14] Gladys S.63:689–92. The dissolution mechanisms of silicate and glass-ionomer dental cements. Am J Dent 1999. The short-term fluoride release of a hand-mixed vs. Fluoride release process of (resin-modified) glass-ionomer cements versus (polyacid-modified) composite resins. In vitro demineralization-remineralization of enamel caries at restoration margins utilizing fluoride-releasing composite resin. [35] Rawls HR. Fluoride-containing restoratives. Effects of silane coupling agents on the fluoride release from experimental dental composites. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. J. Fluoride-exchanging resins for caries protection. . Kujn AT. Silverstone LM.6:431–3. Summitt JB. Appert C. Norling B.25:355–8.O. Braem M. [3] Donly KJ.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful