Conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cement - fluoride release
Oliveira LB*, Bönecker M**, Mickenautsch S***
* São Leopoldo Mandic Research Center, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
** School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
*** Division of Public Oral Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Abstract
Resin-modified glass-ionomers release more fluoride in vitro.
This abstract is prepared and maintained by Midentistry, currently published in The MI Compendium, 3rd edition, Copyright © 2009, 2010 Midentistry. The full data of this review is available in http://www.midentistry.com/secure-folder/content/3/mic11H2.asp (ISBN: 0-620-34080-0)
This record should be cited as: Oliveira LB, Bönecker M, Mickenautsch S. Conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cement - fluoride release. Minim Interv Comp Database Syst Rev 2010; 1: RV00620101203
This version first published online: March 12, 2010
Last revised: March 12, 2010
Objectives
To assess whether GIC have releases more fluoride than resin-modified GIC (RMGIC).
Search strategy
The trials were identified from a search of the PubMed database on: November 17, 2009 using the terms: "Fluorides"[Mesh] AND ("Glass Ionomer Cements"[Mesh] OR "Cermet Cements"[Mesh]) AND (("resins, plant"[MeSH Terms] OR ("resins"[All Fields] AND "plant"[All Fields]) OR "plant resins"[All Fields] OR "resin"[All Fields]) AND modified[All Fields] AND ("glass ionomer cements"[MeSH Terms] OR ("glass"[All Fields] AND "ionomer"[All Fields] AND "cements"[All Fields]) OR "glass ionomer cements"[All Fields] OR ("glass"[All Fields] AND "ionomer"[All Fields] AND "cement"[All Fields]) OR "glass ionomer cement"[All Fields])
Inclusion criteria
All progressive 2-arm in-vitro, in-situ or in-vivo trials; with relevance to review question including computable data; published in English.
Exclusion criteria:
No computable continuous data for both, test- and control group.
Data collection and analysis
The systematic literature search found 171 trials of which 46 were identified to be in line with the inclusion criteria. Of these, 26 in-vitro trials were accepted for data extraction. From the reviewed trials 184 individual datasets were extracted and analyzed.
Main results and Authors' conclusions
There was no conclusive difference found between both materials in their cumulative fluoride release. However, the fluoride release at time intervals appeared to be higher for RMGIC.
