A Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride ion Release and Alkalizing Potential of Recent Restorative Materials: An In-vitro Study.
Bioactive materials
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate and compare fluoride ion release and alkalizing effect by Bulkfill composite (Cention-N), Giomer (Shofu Beautifil II) and Compomer (Dyract eXtra)
Objectives: To evaluate and Compare fluoride ion release and alkalizing effect of alkasite restorative material, Cention-N, Beautifill II and Dyract eXtra in neutral and acidic pH solution and to conclude which material has the best alkalizing and fluoride ion releasing property.
Materials and Methodology: Straight hand piece ( NSK , Japan ),Micro motor (Unicorn Denmart, India), Diamond disc (0.15mm) and diamond finishing burs (Shofu, Japan), Airotor (NSK, Japan), Cention-N (Ivoclar, Lichtenstein), Beautifil II (Shofu, Japan), Dyract eXtra (Dentsply, Sirona).
Freshly extracted permanent human mandibular molars(samples). Total number of freshly extracted permanent mandibular molars were 45. Each tooth was sectioned from the CEJ level and the root was discarded. Further, each coronal segment was sectioned into four parts mesiodistally and buccolingually. Thus, a total of 180 samples was obtained from 45 teeth. These samples (n=180) were divided in 3 groups with each group containing 60 samples each. Group A (Cention-N)- 60 samples; Group B (Beautifil II)- 60 samples and Group C (Dyract eXtra)- 60 samples. The samples were subdivided into two equal subgroups (n=10) on the basis of pH (acidic pH–4, neutral pH–6.8) of the solution used for testing. The subgroups representing acidic pH were AA, BA, and CA, and subgroups representing neutral pH were AN, BN and CN. Finally, each of the subgroups was further divided into three groups on the basis of duration (7 days, 14 days, and 21 days) for which testing was done.
One-hundred and eighty plastic containers were prepared each containing 5 ml of deionized water/acidic medium. Ten samples from each of the subgroup was stored in each of these plastic containers. After 24 h, the containers was thoroughly shaken; samples were removed; and the storage medium was collected. The samples were then re-immersed in the plastic container-containing fresh 5 mL of deionized water. The same procedure was repeated for 7 days for subgroups –AN7, BN 7, CN 7, AA 7, BA 7, and CA 7, for 14 days for subgroups –AN14, BN 14, CN 14 and AA 14, BA 14, and CA 14, and for 21 days for subgroups –AN 21, BN 21, CN 21 and AA21, BA 21, and CA 21.
The cumulative fluoride ion release and change in pH was assessed at the end of 7 days, 14 days, and 21 days utilizing spectrophotometer and pH meter, respectively. The data thus obtained was statistically analyzed using ANOVA-F, Paired “t”, and Unpaired t-test.
RESULT: Cention N showed the highest fluoride ion release as well as alkalizing potential.
CONCLUSION: All restorative materials released fluoride at all time intervals viz 7, 14 and 21 days. Cention N showed the highest fluoride ion release when compared to Beautifil II and Dyracte Xtra. All restorative materials showed an increase in pH at all time durations viz 7, 14 and 21 days. Cention N showed the highest pH change or alkalizing potential followed by DyracteXtra and Beautifil II.
Author Biographies
Assistant Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, BBDCODS, BBD University.
References
Gupta N, Jaiswal S, Nikhil V, Gupta S, Jha P, Bansal P. Comparison of fluoride ion release and alkalizing potential of a new bulk-fill alkasite. J Conserv Dent. 2019 May-Jun;22(3):296-299
Bali P, Prabhakar AR, Basappa N. An in-vitro comparative evaluation of compressive strength and antibacterial activity of conventional GIC and Hydroxyapatite reinforced GIC in different storage media. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Jul;9(7):ZC51-5
Mazumdar P, Das A, Das UK. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different direct restorative materials (silver amalgam, glass ionomer cement, cention N), in Class II restorations using stereomicroscope: An in-vitro study. Indian J Dent Res. 2019; 30:277-81
Manuja N, Pandit I K, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Nagpal R. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various esthetic restorative materials to dentin: An in-vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011;29:7-13
Rai S, Kumari RA, Meena N. Comparative assessment of fluoride release and recharge through newer fluoride releasing posterior restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2019;22(6):544-547.
Walaa A. , Sadek GEDM. Comparative assessment of antibacterial activity and fluoride release potential of Cention-N and different bioactive restorative materials: An in vitro study. Egyptian Dental Journal. 2017; 67: 2795-2803.
Dionysopoulos D, Koliniotou-Koumpia E, Kotsanosc N. The effect of low concentration fluoride solutions on the fluoride recharge ability of contemporary dental restoratives and adhesives; Research Report Fluoride. 2015; 48(4)345-357
Kelic K., Par M., Peros K.,Sutej I.,Tarle Z. “Fluoride-Releasing Restorative Materials: The Effect of a Resinous Coat on Ion Release.” Acta Stomatol Croat. 2020 54(4):371-381.
Bansal R, Bansal T. A Comparative Evaluation of the Amount of Fluoride Release and Re-Release after Recharging from Aesthetic Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(8):ZC11-ZC14
Mousavinasab SM, Meyers I. Fluoride release by glass ionomer cements, compomer and giomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2009 Fall;6(2):75-81.
