medigraphic.com
ISSN 0001-0944 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana

1999, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev ADM 1999; 56 (2)

Anticariogenic restorative materials

Ewoldsen N, Herwig L, Goël BM,

Language: Spanish
References: 28
Page: 70-75
PDF size: 150.75 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Clear differences exist in the fluoride release characteristics and setting reactions of glass-ionomer cements and compomers. Differences in decay inhibition associated with specific materials are less clear. Furthermore, resin added to GIC formulations and acids added to composite resins makes it difficult to distinguishing composite resins from compomers and GICs, all of which have reported fluoride release. Optimal fluoride release from a dental restorative depends on several conditions including oral flora, saliva, diet, mineral content of the dental tissues and marginal seal of the restoration. Presently, in vitro and in vivo studies suggest that materials which behave similar to silicate cements in their setting reactions and hydration characteristics will behave as decay inhibiting restoratives. Until optimal fluoride release from dental restoratives can be quantified, dental clinicians are encouraged to consider clinical outcomes as the best test for decay inhibition. Nearly a century of clinical findings support the anticariogenicity of silicate cements. This article reviews fluoride release and anticariogenicity of restorative materials using silicate cement as a model with a well defined mechanism for preventing secondary caries. The behavior of newer materials will be compared to silicate cement for predicting decay inhibition.


REFERENCES

  1. Rawls HR. Preventive dental materials: sustained delivery of fluoride and other therapeutic agents. Adv Dent Res 1991; 5:50-55.

  2. Phillips RW. Dental Cements for Restoration. Cavity Varnishes, Liners, and Bases.In: Skinner’s Science of Dental Materials. 9 ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1991: 447-466.

  3. Horsted-Bindslev P. Fluoride release from alternative restorative materials. J Dent 1994; 22(S1): S17-20.

  4. Komatsu H, Shimokobe H, Kawakami S et al. Cariespreventive effect of glass ionomer sealant reapplication:study presents three-year results. J Am Dent Assoc 1994;125: 543-549.

  5. Andersson-Wenckert IE, Folkesson UH, van Dijken JW.Durability of a polyacidmodified composite resin (compomer) in primary molars. Acta Odontol Scand 1997; 55:255260.

  6. Dionysopoulos P, Kotsanos N, Papadogianis Y. Secondary caries formation around glass ionomer-lined amalgam and composite restorations. J Oral Rehabil 1996; 23: 511-519.

  7. Metz JE, Brackett WW. Performance of a glass ionomer luting cement over 8 years in a general practice. J Prosth Dent 1994; 71: 13-15.

  8. Volker J, Bekaris P, Melillo S. Some observations on the relationship between plastic filling materials and dental caries. Tufts Dental Outlook 1944; 18: 4-8.

  9. McLean JW, Nicholson JW, Wilson AD. Proposed nomenclature for glass-ionomer dental cements and related materials. Quintessence Int 1994; 25: 587-589.

  10. Swartz ML, Phillips RW. The solubility of enamel on areas of known hardness. J Dent Res 1952; 52: 293-300.

  11. Laswell HR. A prevalence study of secondary caries occurring in a young adult male population. IADR Abstracts, 45th General Meeting:1967: 426.

  12. Forss H, Jokinen J, Spets-Happonen S et al. Fluoride and mutans streptococci in plaque grown on glass ionomer and composite. Caries Res 1991; 25: 454-458.

  13. Svanberg M, Mjor IA, Orstavik D. Mutans streptococci in plaque from margins of amalgam, composite, and glass ionomer restorations. J Dent Res 1990; 69: 861-864.

  14. Friedl KH, Schmalz G, Hiller KA et al. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: fluoride release and influence on Streptococcus mutans growth. Eur J Oral Sci 1997; 105:81-85.

  15. Brune D, Smith D. Microstructure and strength properties of silicate and glass ionomer cements. Acta Odontol Scand 1982; 40: 389-396.

  16. Vorkus RP, Cisneros GJ, Levi M. Antibacterial properties of current orthodontic band cements. Pediatric Dentistry 1998; 20:43-48.

  17. McLean JW. The clinical use of glass-ionomer cements.Dent Clin North Am 1992; 36: 693-711.

  18. Hatton PV, Brook IM. Characterization of the ultrastructure of glass ionomer (polyalkenoate) cement. Br Dent J 1992;173: 275-277.

  19. Bowen RL, Marjenhoff WA. Dental composites/glass ionomers: the materials. Adv Delit Res 1992; 6: 44-49.

  20. Denehy GE, Vargas M. Class V restorations utilizing a new compomer material: a case presentation. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1996; 8: 269-275.

  21. Burgess JO, Norling BK, Rawls HR, Ong JL. Directly placed esthetic restorative materials-the continuum. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1996; 17: 731-732, 734.

  22. Suljak JP, Hatibovic-Kofman S. A fluoride releaseadsorption-release system applied to fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Quintessence Int 1996; 27: 635-638.

  23. Abate PF, Polack MA, Macchi RL. Barcoll hardness of resinmodified glass-ionomer cements and a compomer.Quintessence Int. 1997; 28: 345-348.

  24. Tantbirojn D, Retief DH, Russell CM. Enamel, cementum and dentin fluoride uptake from a fluoride releasing resin composite. Am J Dent 1992; 5: 226-232.

  25. Takahashi K, Emilson CG, Birkhed D. Fluoride release in vitro from various glass ionomer cements and resin composites after exposure to NaF solutions. Dent Mater 1993; 9: 350-354.

  26. Thevadass KP, Pearson GJ, Anstice HM et al. Method for enhancing the fluoride release of a glass ionomer cement.Biomaterials 1996; 17: 425-429.

  27. Forsten L. Fluoride release of glass ionomers. Glass ionomers:the next generation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Glass Ionomers, Editor: PR Hunt, International Dental Symposia, PC, Philadelphia, 1994.

  28. ten Cate JM, van Duinen RNB. Hypermineralization of dentinal lesions adjacent to glass-ionomer cement restorations. J Dent Res 1995; 74: 1266-1271.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com