Key Points
In brief
-
Recharging conventional GICs, resin-modified GICs, and a compomer with APF gel for 4 minutes resulted in large amounts of fluoride ions being released in artificial saliva.
-
However, the effects were transitory and the acidic gel damaged the surfaces of the conventional GICs and resin-modified GICs, especially.
-
The use of topically-applied acidic gels should be avoided with these restorative materials.
Abstract
Objective In this investigation, the in vitro sustained fluoride release, weight loss and erosive wear of three conventional glass ionomer cements (Fuji IX, ChemFil Superior, Ketac-Silver), three resin-modified glass ionomer cements (Fuji II LC, Vitremer, Photac-Fil), a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract), and a resin composite control material (Z100) were compared.
Methods The amounts of fluoride released and weight changes were measured for 12 weeks using a fluoride electrode with TISAB III buffer. After 12 weeks, the specimens were recharged with fluoride using 2 mL of 1.23% APF gel. The recharged specimens were assessed for the amounts of fluoride released and weight changes over another 12 weeks. At the end of the experiment, the specimens were examined with SEM and surface profilometry.
Results All materials, with the exception of Z100, showed the highest initial fluoride release rates during the first 2 days, dropping quickly over 2 weeks and becoming largely stabilised after 5 weeks, in an exponential mode. The recharging of the specimens with APF gel caused a large increase in the amounts of fluoride released during the first 2 days only. Analyses for all cements showed strong correlations between mean weight loss and cumulative fluoride release over a 5-week period following the application of the APF gel. SEM and surface profilometry found that roughness increased from the polyacid-modified resin composite to the conventional glass ionomer cements.
Conclusions APF gel caused erosive wear of the glass ionomer cements especially, and the wear correlated well with the weight losses. To minimise surface erosion, APF gel should not be used on these cements, especially as the recharging effects are transitory.
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Forsten L . Fluoride release and uptake by glass-ionomer and related materials and its clinical effect. Biomaterials 1998; 19: 503–508.
McCabe J F . Resin modified glass ionomers. Biomaterials 1998; 19: 521–527.
Verbeek R M H, de Maeyer E A P, Marks L A M, deMoor R J G, de Witte A M J C, Trimpeneers L M . Fluoride release process of resin modified glass ionomer cements versus polyacid modified composite resins. Biomaterials 1998; 19: 509–519.
Forsten L . Fluoride release and uptake by glass ionomers. Scand J Dent Res 1991; 99: 241–245.
Billington R W, Williams J, Pearson G J . The effects of maturation on in vitro erosion of glass ionomers. Br Dent J 1992; 173: 340–342.
Hegarty A, Pearson G J . Assessment of the erosion and compressive strength of hybrid glass ionomer cements when light activated or chemically set. Biomaterials 1993; 14: 349–352.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pearson, G. Should APF gel be used on glass ionomer cements?. Br Dent J 187, 259 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.437
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.437
