Elsevier

Journal of Dentistry

Volume 26, Issues 5–6, July–August 1998, Pages 533-538
Journal of Dentistry

Paper
Fluoride release and cariostatic ability of a compomer and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement used for orthodontic bonding

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00017-7Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of this study were to compare the local and systemic uptake of fluoride released from a compomer material (Dyract Ortho) and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer) with that of a conventional resin adhesive (Right-On) and to compare the cariostatic ability of each of the test materials with that of the resin control.

Methods: Twenty six patients were randomly allocated to have a bracket bonded to a premolar on one side of the arch with one of the test materials and on the opposite side with the control material. Premolars destined for extraction as part of an orthodontic treatment plan were selected for bonding. A non-fluoride toothpaste was used by all participants for 4 weeks prior to bracket bonding and throughout the 4 week trial period. Fluoride release was measured in saliva, plaque and urine samples taken pre-bonding and 4 weeks post-bonding. Enamel demineralisation was assessed by scoring the buccal surface of each extracted tooth using a caries index.

Results: Neither Vitremer nor Dyract Ortho altered salivary or urinary fluoride concentration significantly 4 weeks post-bonding but plaque fluoride concentration increased significantly around premolars bonded with Vitremer. The test materials as a combined group were associated with significantly less demineralisation than the control material but there was no significant difference in cariostatic ability detected between either Dyract Ortho or Vitremer when each group was compared separately with the control.

Conclusions: Fluoride released from Dyract Ortho or Vitremer is likely to exert a local and not a systemic effect. In a 4-week clinical study, the cariostatic ability of the fluoride-releasing cements, as a combined group, was superior to that of the non-fluoride releasing control but there was no significant difference in cariostatic ability between the two test materials when each test group was compared separately with the control.

References (34)

  • DB Mirth et al.

    Clinical evaluation of an intraoral device for the controlled release of fluoride

    Journal of the American Dental Association

    (1982)
  • M Underwood et al.

    Clinical evaluation of a fluoride-exchanging resin as an orthodontic adhesive

    American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

    (1989)
  • F Lundstrom et al.

    Streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli frequency in orthodontic patients

    European Journal of Orthodontics

    (1987)
  • J Artun et al.

    Prevalence of carious white spots after orthodontic treatment with multibonded appliances

    European Journal of Orthodontics

    (1986)
  • L Mitchell

    Decalcification during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances—an overview

    British Journal of Orthodontics

    (1992)
  • D Chan et al.

    In vitro evaluation of a fluoride-releasing orthodontic resin

    Journal of Dental Research

    (1990)
  • S Ghani et al.

    The influence of fluoride-releasing bonding composites in the development of artificial white lesions. An ex vivo study

    British Journal of Orthodontics

    (1994)
  • Cited by (60)

    • Effect of 3 cements on white spot lesion formation after full-coverage rapid maxillary expander: A comparative in-vivo study

      2016, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Unlike polycarboxylate cements, GICs can release and absorb fluoride.9,35 Even in a more restricted level, compomers also have fluoride release and uptake properties; just like GICs, they could prevent decalcification to some level.35,36 In our study, the enhanced white spot lesion formation in the polycarboxylate group compared with the GIC and compomer groups may be associated with the lack of fluoride release of the polycarboxylate cements.

    • Cements and composites

      2013, Journal of the American Dental Association
    • An in-vitro assessment of weekly cumulative fluoride release from three glass ionomer cements used for orthodontic banding

      2012, Progress in Orthodontics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Geiger et al. [28] reported that only 42% of patients rinsed with a sodium fluoride mouth rinse at least every other day. Fluoride releasing materials such as GICs do not need patient's compliance, and therefore, GICs and topical fluoride therapy have been used in orthodontics as a possible means of caries prevention [29–35]. The method we used for assessing ion release is a common method; however, solution should not contain any interfering ions that form complexes or precipitates with the test ions.

    • Surface characteristics of orthodontic adhesives and effects on streptococcal adhesion

      2010, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text