midentistry

ANSWER:

Glass-ionomer cements release more fluoride than compomers.

QUESTION:
Does GIC release more fluoride than compomer?

Database: PubMed

1. Literature search and review

Search date: 25.11.2009

Search words (MeSH/Textwords/Boolean string):

Fluorides AND Glass Ionomer Cements OR Cermet Cements AND Compomer

Search strategy: PubMed search using search words, followed by reference check of included articles

Criteria for article inclusion:
1. Relevant to review question
2. Published in English language
3. 2-arm prospective longitudinal study (in-vitro, in-situ, in-vivo)

Search results:
Total number of articles found = 47
Number of articles included based on the inclusion criteria = 17 trials
Number of trials excluded after further review = 8
Number of trials accepted after further review = 9

2. Data analysis and results

The systematic literature search found 47 articles of which 17 in-vitro trials were identified to be in line with the inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 trials were traced and accepted for further review and data extraction. From the 9 reviewed trials 62 individual datasets were extracted and analysed. The results show a significantly higher fluoride release (p<0.05) of GIC in most datasets. No dataset favoured compomers above GIC in terms of the amount of fluoride released.

Collaborating review centre:
Universidade de São Paulo
Departmento de Ortodontia e
OdontopediatriaFaculdade
de Odontologia
Av Prof Lineu Prestes
2227 Sao Paulo
Brazil

Review of the included articles was conducted independently by two reviewers. Differences were resolved by discussion and consensus. Trials were excluded if they contained no computable data.

Trials excluded (with reason):
(1) Marczuk-Kolada G, Jakoniuk P, Mystkowska J, Łuczaj-Cepowicz E, Waszkiel D, Dabrowski JR, Leszczyńska K.Fluoride release and antibacterial activity of selected dental materials. Postepy Hig Med Dosw (Online). 2006 Aug 9;60:416-20. (No SD reported)
(2) Delbem AC, Pedrini D, França JG, Machado TM. Fluoride release/recharge from restorative materials--effect of fluoride gels and time. Oper Dent. 2005 Nov-Dec;30(6):690-5. (No SD reported)
(3) Ikebe K, Ettinger RL, Wefel JS. In vitro evaluation of fluoride-releasing restorative materials for sealing the root canals of overdenture abutments. Int J Prosthodont. 2001 Nov-Dec;14(6):556-62. (No SD reported)
(4) Karantakis P, Helvatjoglou-Antoniades M, Theodoridou-Pahini S, Papadogiannis Y. Fluoride release from three glass ionomers, a compomer, and a composite resin in water, artificial saliva, and lactic acid. Oper Dent. 2000 Jan-Feb;25(1):20-5. (No SD reported)
(5) Xu HH, Eichmiller FC, Antonucci JM, Schumacher GE, Ives LK. Dental resin composites containing ceramic whiskers and precured glass ionomer particles. Dent Mater. 2000 Sep;16(5):356-63. (No SD reported)
(6) Preston AJ, Higham SM, Agalamanyi EA, Mair LH. Fluoride recharge of aesthetic dental materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1999 Dec;26(12):936-40. (No SD reported)
(7) Preston AJ, Mair LH, Agalamanyi EA, Higham SM. Fluoride release from aesthetic dental materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1999 Feb;26(2):123-9. (No SD reported)
(8) Friedl KH, Schmalz G, Hiller KA, Shams M. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: fluoride release and influence on Streptococcus mutans growth. Eur J Oral Sci. 1997 Feb;105(1):81-5. (No SD reported)

SD = Standard deviation.

Trials accepted:
- in vitro -
(1) Silva KG, Pedrini D, Delbem AC, Cannon M. Microhardness and fluoride release of restorative materials in different storage media. Braz Dent J. 2007;18(4):309-13.
(2) Attar N, Turgut MD. Fluoride release and uptake capacities of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2003 Jul-Aug;28(4):395-402.
(3) Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Long-term fluoride release from a glass ionomer cement, a compomer, and from experimental resin composites. Acta Odontol Scand. 2002 Mar;60(2):93-7.
(4) Helvatjoglu-Antoniades M, Karantakis P, Papadogiannis Y, Kapetanios H. Fluoride release from restorative materials and a luting cement. J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Aug;86(2):156-64.
(5) Xu HH, Eichmiller FC, Antonucci JM, Flaim GM. Single-crystalline ceramic whisker-reinforced carboxylic acid-resin composites with fluoride release. Oper Dent. 2000 Mar-Apr;25(2):90-7.
(6) Aboush YE, Torabzadeh H. Fluoride release from tooth-colored restorative materials: a 12-month report. J Can Dent Assoc. 1998 Sep;64(8):561-4, 568.
(7) Yap AU, Tham SY, Zhu LY, Lee HK. Short-term fluoride release from various aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2002 May-Jun;27(3):259-65.
(8) Shaw AJ, Carrick T, McCabe JF. Fluoride release from glass-ionomer and compomer restorative materials: 6-month data. J Dent. 1998 May;26(4):355-9.
(9) Al-Naimi OT, Itota T, Hobson RS, McCabe JF. Fluoride release for restorative materials and its effect on biofilm formation in natural saliva. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008 Mar;19(3):1243-8.

The systematic literature search identified and traced 9 in-vitro trials in line with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. From these, a total of 62 independent datasets were extracted. Details of these datasets are provided in Table 1.

The trials investigated the difference between glass-ionomer cement and compomers in cumulative fluoride release after periods of time and the fluoride release at certain time intervals.

Of the 62 datasets, 35 were combined in 16 separate meta-analyses and 27 datasets were analyses independently. The results are presented in Table 2 (cumulative fluoride release after periods of time) and Table 3 (fluoride release after certain time intervals).

R E S U L T:
The result of the dataset analyses show that glass-ionomer cements release generally more fluoride than compomers.