We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Oral Health Prev Dent 16 (2018), No. 5     23. Nov. 2018
Oral Health Prev Dent 16 (2018), No. 5  (23.11.2018)

Page 417-424, doi:10.3290/j.ohpd.a41363, PubMed:30460354


Microhardness and SEM-EDX Analysis of Permanent Enamel Surface Adjacent to Fluoride-releasing Restorative Materials Under Severe Cariogenic Challenges
Özveren, Neslihan / Özalp, Şerife
Purpose: In this study, the protective effects of restorative materials with fluoride content, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), giomer, and glass carbomer against artificial initial caries lesions in a simulated highly cariogenic oral environment were evaluated. Considering the reported recharging abilities of these restorative materials, fluoridated toothpaste was applied to some groups, in which the anti-demineralising effect was also evaluated.
Materials and Methods: Two enamel blocks were produced from each of 60 sound permanent molars. Sixty specimens were used for microhardness analysis, and the rest were used for SEM-EDX analysis. Enamel specimens were randomly assigned to three groups according to the restorative material: A = resin-modified glass-ionomer cement; B = giomer; C = glass carbomer. Artificial initial caries lesions were created using demineralising solutions, after which specimens were exposed to in vitro pH cycling simulating a highly cariogenic oral environment. Microhardness and mineral analyses were performed on the enamel surrounding the restorative materials at three different times during the experiment: at the beginning of the experiment, then after the creation of the artificial early caries lesions, and finally after pH cycling.
Results: Microhardness and SEM-EDX results mostly confirmed each other. RMGIC and glass carbomer groups with added fluoride toothpaste showed statitsically significantly better anti-demineralising effects in comparison to other groups. Neither of the giomer groups performed as well as RMGIC or glass carbomer.
Conclusion: Because of the similarity between the demineralisation inhibitory activity of glass carbomer and RMGIC, glass carbomer may be preferred as a restorative material in paediatric dentistry.

Keywords: fluoride, giomer, glass carbomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, SEM-EDX