The interaction of polyacid-modified composite resins ("compomers") with aqueous fluoride solutions

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate how the release of fluoride from two compomers and a fluoridated composite resin was affected by exposure to KF solution. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two compomers (Dyract AP and Compoglass F) and one fluoridated composite (Wave) were prepared as discs (6 mm diameter and 2 mm thick), curing with a standard dental lamp. They were then stored in either water or 0.5% KF for 1 week, followed by placement in water for periods of 1 week up to 5 weeks total. Fluoride was determined with and without TISAB (to allow complexed and decomplexed fluoride to be determined), and other ion release (Na, Ca, Al, Si, P) was determined by ICP-OES. RESULTS: Specimens were found not to take up fluoride from 100 ppm KF solution in 24 h, but to release additional fluoride when stored for up to five weeks. Compomers released more fluoride cumulatively following exposure to KF solution (p<0.001), all of which was decomplexed, though initial (1 week) values were not statistically significant for Dyract AP. Other ions showed no variations in release over 1 week, regardless of whether the specimens were exposed to KF. Unlike the compomers, Wave showed no change in fluoride release as a result of exposure to KF. CONCLUSIONS: Compomers are affected by KF solution, and release more fluoride (but not other ions) after exposure than if stored in water.

A revised classification for direct tooth-colored restorative materials

Composite resins and glass-ionomer cements were introduced to dentistry in the 1960s and 1970s, respectively. Since then, there has been a series of modifications to both materials as well as the development other groups claiming intermediate characteristics between the two. The result is a confusion of materials leading to selection problems. While both materials are tooth-colored, there is a considerable difference in their properties, and it is important that each is used in the appropriate situation. Composite resin materials are esthetic and now show acceptable physical strength and wear resistance. However, they are hydrophobic, and therefore more difficult to handle in the oral environment, and cannot support ion migration. Also, the problems of gaining long-term adhesion to dentin have yet to be overcome. On the other hand, glass ionomers are water-based and therefore have the potential for ion migration, both inward and outward from the restoration, leading to a number of advantages. However, they lack the physical properties required for use in load-bearing areas. A logical classification designed to differentiate the materials was first published by McLean et al in 1994, but in the last 15 years, both types of material have undergone further research and modification. This paper is designed to bring the classification up to date so that the operator can make a suitable, evidence-based, choice when selecting a material for any given situation.

Marginal adaptation and performance of bioactive dental restorative materials in deciduous and young permanent teeth

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the adaptation of different types of restorations towards deciduous and young permanent teeth. Materials and Methods: Class V cavities were prepared in deciduous and young permanent teeth and filled with different materials (a conventional glass-ionomer, a resin-modified glass-ionomer, a poly-acid-modified composite resin and a conventional composite resin). Specimens were aged in artificial saliva for 1, 6, 12 and 18 months, then examined by SEM. Results: The composite resin and the polyacid-modified composite had better marginal adaptation than the glass-ionomers,though microcracks developed in the enamel of the tooth. The glass-ionomers showed inferior marginal quality and durability, but no microcracking of the enamel. The margins of the resin-modified glass-ionomer were slightly superior to the conventional glass-ionomer. Conditioning improved the adaptation of the composite resin, but the type of tooth made little or no difference to the performance of the restorative material. All materials were associated with the formation of crystals in the gaps between the filling and the tooth; the quantity and shape of these crystals varied with the material. Conclusions: Resin-based materials are generally better at forming sound, durable margins in deciduous and young permanent teeth than cements, but are associated with microcracks in the enamel. All fluoride-releasing materials give rise to crystalline deposits.