Fluoride release and cariostatic ability of a compomer and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement used for orthodontic bonding
Fluoride release and cariostatic ability of a compomer and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement used for orthodontic bonding
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0300-5712(98)00017-7
复制
发表时间：
1998-07-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Foye, RH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chung, CK;Millett, DT;Foye, RH
目的：本研究的目的是比较复合材料释放的氟化物的局部和全身吸收（Dyract Ortho）和树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀（Vitremer）与常规树脂粘合剂的粘合剂相比，（右开）并将每种测试材料的防龋能力与树脂对照的防龋能力进行比较。26名患者被随机分配到有一个托槽粘结到一个前磨牙上的一个测试材料的一侧和对侧的对照材料。作为正畸治疗计划的一部分，选择用于拔牙的前磨牙进行粘接。所有参与者在托槽粘接前4周和整个4周试验期间使用不含氟牙膏。在粘接前和粘接后4周，测量唾液、牙菌斑和尿液样本中的氟化物释放。釉质脱矿进行了评估，每个提取的牙齿使用龋齿index.Results颊面评分：无论是Vitremer，也不Dyract Ortho改变唾液或尿氟浓度显着4周后的债券，但牙菌斑氟浓度显着增加与Vitremer债券周围的前磨牙。作为一个组合组的测试材料与显着减少脱矿物质比对照材料，但有没有显着差异，无论是Dyract Ortho或Vitremer之间检测到的防龋能力时，每组分别与control.Conclusions相比：氟释放从Dyract Ortho或Vitremer可能会发挥局部，而不是全身性的影响。在为期4周的临床研究中，作为组合组的氟释放粘固剂的防龋能力上级非氟释放对照，但当每个试验组单独与对照比较时，两种试验材料之间的防龋能力没有显著差异。(C)1998爱思唯尔科技有限公司版权所有。
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. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.