Fluoride Releasing Potential and Recharging Capacity of Different Bioactive Restorative Materials (A Comparative In-Vitro Study) | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 18, Volume 66, Issue 2 - April (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics), April 2020, Page 1295-1309 PDF (371.87 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2020.25914.1072 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Eman Mohamed El-Bahrawy  1; Reham Mohamed Attia2
| ||||
| 1Department of Dental Biomaterials, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt | ||||
| 2Assistant Professor of Operative Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Aim: This study aimed to asses and compare the fluoride releasing potential and recharging capacity of different bioactive restorative materials in-vitro Materials and Methods: 50 freshly extracted premolar teeth was used. buccal class V cavities were prepared. Sample was randomly divided into 5 main groups (n = 10 /group), representing materials used; Conventional glass ionomer, resin modified glass ionomer, Compomer , Giomer; and ACTIVA Bioactive-Restorative. Fluoride releasing potential and recharging capacity were evaluated at 1st, 3rd,7th, 14th , 21st and 28th days. Results: There was significant difference between each tested materials at all time intervals before and after recharging (p ≤ 0.001). The highest fluoride releasing potential and recharging capacity was in (Day-1), and the least value was in (Day-28). There was significant difference between the tested materials at each time interval regarding fluoride release before and after recharge.; Conventional glass ionomer showed the highest values of fluoride releasing potential and recharging capacity at each time interval (1st, 3rd,7th, 14th , 21st and 28th days.), while compomer showed the lowest values at each time interval. Conclusion: The conventional glass ionomer showed the highest fluoride releasing potential and recharging capacity, while compomer showed the lowest fluoride releasing potential and recharging capacity at each time interval. ACTIVIA Bioactive-Restorative showed a lower fluoride releasing potential and fluoride recharging capacity than those of conventional glass ionomer, a higher values than those of both compomers and , resin modified glass ionomer and comparable to those of giomer at each time interval | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| ACTIVA Bioactive-Restorative; Fluoride Releasing Potential; Recharging Capacity | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 725 PDF Download: 1,204 |
||||
