[Evaluation of long-term release of fluoride by type II glass ionomer cements with a conventional hardening reaction]

Abstract

As a part of a fundamental investigation on the fluoride release of glass ionomer cements (GIC), this study investigates the operator dependency of the fluoride release. In this respect the GIC fluoride release of a classical powder-liquid based system (Fuji II) and a capsule-based system (Fuji Cap II) in water during 14 days was determined on the hand of 5 specimens per formulation, made by 5 different operators. The data reveal that the variance on the fluoride release as well as the mean fluoride release at a given time are independent of the operator for both Fuji II and Fuji Cap II. In order to derive fundamental factors affecting the GIC fluoride release, the long-term fluoride release of 10 conventional setting type II GIC is investigated. In this respect the fluoride release profiles (FRP) of each of 5 cylindrical specimens (d = 6 mm, h = 3 mm) of Fuji II (FP), Fuji Cap II (FC), Miracle Mix (MM), Chemfil II (CP), Chemfil II in caps. (CC), Chelon-Fil (CF), Ketac-Fil (KF), Shofu II (SH), Chelon-Silver (CS) and Ketac-Silver (KS) were determined. The specimens were made according to the manufacturer's instruction and equilibrated at 37 degrees C in 25 mL distilled water up to 140 days. The water was regularly renewed and the fluoride concentration [F] of the equilibrated solution determined. A Multivariate Data Analysis of the ¿[F]],t¿-profiles on the basis of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) reveals that the FRP can be classified into 4 distinct groups: ¿CS,KS,FP¿ - ¿FC,CC¿ - ¿CF,KF¿ and ¿MM¿, leaving SH and CP apart as unclassifiable. When the cumulative amount of fluoride released ([F]c) for each individual sample is calculated and fitted as a function of time, a regression analysis shows that [F]c is most adequately fitted (r > 0.99) by [F]c = [F]I/t + t1/2 + beta. Square root of t, indicating that 2 kinetic processes are responsible for the FRP. A comparison of the parameters of this equation ([F]I, t1/2 and beta) shows that the physicochemical rationale for this classification of the GIC conforms to differences in the kinetics of these processes. From the classification, it becomes apparent that different formulations can result in the same FRP.