Fluorid Salınımı Yapan Güncel Restoratif Materyaller
Özet
Diş hekimliğinde koruyucu ve konservatif yaklaşımların bir sonucu olarak geliştirilen fluorid salınımı yapan güncel restoratif materyaller, etki mekanizmaları ve klinik özellikleriyle incelenmektedir. Fluorid iyonu, bakteri enzimlerini inhibe ederek asit oluşumunu engeller, demineralizasyonu önler ve hidroksiapatiti floroapatite dönüştürerek remineralizasyonu katalize eder; böylece sekonder çürük ve mikrosızıntı riskini azaltır. Materyallerden gerçekleşen karmaşık fluorid salınım süreci yüzeyden yıkanma, gözeneklerden difüzyon ve hacimsel difüzyon olmak üzere üç yolla meydana gelir. Geleneksel cam iyonomer simanlar (GCİS), yüksek viskoziteli ve rezin modifiye cam iyonomer simanlar (RMCİS), kompomerler, giomerler, cam karbomerler ve fluorid içeren kompozit rezinler detaylıca kıyaslanmaktadır. Çalışmalar, en yüksek ve uzun dönemli fluorid salınımı ile yeniden yüklenebilme (reşarj) yeteneğinin genellikle geleneksel ve yüksek viskoziteli cam iyonomer bazlı materyaller ile cam karbomerlerde olduğunu; buna karşın kompomer, giomer ve kompozit rezin türevlerinde salınımın daha sınırlı kaldığını göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, sekonder çürüklerin önlenmesinde bu materyallerin klinik başarısı kanıtlanmış olsa da, piyasaya yeni sürülen güncel dental materyallerin uzun dönemli etkinliğini ve fluorid salınım kapasitelerini tam olarak saptayabilmek adına daha fazla klinik ve laboratuvar çalışmasına ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır.
Fluoride-releasing restorative materials used in contemporary dentistry are examined in terms of their mechanisms of action and clinical characteristics, developed as a result of conservative approaches. The fluoride ion exhibits anticariogenic effects by inhibiting bacterial enzymes to prevent acid formation, halting demineralization, and acting as a catalyst for remineralization by transforming hydroxyapatite into acid-resistant fluoroapatite, thereby preventing secondary caries and microleakage. The complex fluoride release process occurs via surface wash, diffusion through pores or cracks, and bulk diffusion. Conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs), high-viscosity GICs, resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs), compomers, giomers, glass carbomers, and fluoride-containing composite resins are comprehensively compared. Studies indicate that conventional GICs, high-viscosity GICs, and glass carbomers exhibit the highest initial burst effect, sustained long-term fluoride release, and superior recharge capabilities, whereas compomers, giomers, and composite resins show significantly lower ion release due to their resin matrices and adhesive requirements. In conclusion, while these materials effectively reduce secondary caries, further research is required to fully evaluate the long-term ion release profiles of newly introduced biomaterials like glass carbomers and customized composite resins.
Referanslar
Farrugia C, Camilleri J. Antimicrobial properties of conventional restorative filling materials and advances in antimicrobial properties of composite resins and glass ionomer cements - A literature review. Dental Materials. 2015.
Dean J, Avery D, McDonald R. McDonald and Avery Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent. McDonald and Avery Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent. 2011. 192–201 p.
Dionysopoulos D. The effect of fluoride-releasing restorative materials on inhibition of secondary caries formation. Fluoride. 2014;47(3):258–65.
Khoroushi M, Keshani F. A review of glass-ionomers: From conventional glass-ionomer to bioactive glass-ionomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013;10:411–20.
Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials-Fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Vol. 23, Dental Materials. 2007. p. 343–62.
Burke FM, Ray NJ, Mcconnell RJ. Fluoride-containing restorative materials. Int Dent J. 2006;56:33–43.
A.U. Y, E. K. Fluoride release and antibacterial properties of new-generation tooth-colored restoratives [Internet]. Vol. 24, Operative dentistry. 1999. p. 297–305. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=emed7&NEWS=N&AN=31325007
American academy of pediatric dentistry. Guideline on pediatric restorative dentistry. Guidel Pediatr Restor Dent. 2012;34:214–21.
Lohbauer U. Dental Glass Ionomer Cements as Permanent Filling Materials? – Properties, Limitations and Future Trends. Materials (Basel) [Internet]. 2009;3(1):76–96. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/3/1/76/
Bahsi E, Sagmak S, Dayi B, Cellik O, Akkus Z. The evaluation of microleakage and fluoride release of different types of glass ionomer cements. Niger J Clin Pract [Internet]. 2019 Jul 1 [cited 2022 Mar 8];22(7):961–70. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31293262/
Upadhyay S, Rao A, Shenoy R. Comparison of the amount of fluoride release from nanofilled resin modified glass ionomer, conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements. J Dent LOCAL Tehran MES MARCH [Internet]. 2013;10(2):134–40. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3666073&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
Ghajari MF, Torabzadeh H, Safavi N, Sohrabi A, Ardakani FF. Fluoride release from three glass ionomers after exposure to sodium fluoride and acidulated phosphate fluoride gels. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2014;
Porenczuk A, Jankiewicz B, Naurecka M, Bartosewicz B, Sierakowski B, Gozdowski D, et al. A comparison of the remineralizing potential of dental restorative materials by analyzing their fluoride release profiles. Adv Clin Exp Med [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Feb 9];28(6):815–23. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30740943/
Hasan AMHR, Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement (“glass carbomerTM”) compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci [Internet]. 2019 Feb 21;27:e20180230. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30810636
Crowley CM, Doyle J, Towler MR, Hill RG, Hampshire S. The influence of capsule geometry and cement formulation on the apparent viscosity of dental cements. J Dent. 2006;34(8):566–73.
Dowling AH, Fleming GJP. Are encapsulated anterior glass-ionomer restoratives better than their hand-mixed equivalents? J Dent. 2009;37(2):133–40.
DIONYSOPOULOS D, KOLINIOTOU-KOUMPIA E, HELVATZOGLOU-ANTONIADES M, KOTSANOS N. Fluoride release and recharge abilities of contemporary fluoride-containing restorative materials and dental adhesives. Dent Mater J. 2013;
Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S, Kavrik F, Yasa B, Botsali M. Fluoride release/recharging ability and bond strength of glass ionomer cements to sound and caries-affected dentin. Niger J Clin Pract [Internet]. 2017 Feb [cited 2018 Dec 18];20(2):226. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28091442
Rolim FG, De Araújo Lima AD, Lima Campos IC, De Sousa Ferreira R, Da Cunha Oliveira-Júnior C, Gomes Prado VL, et al. Fluoride Release of Fresh and Aged Glass Ionomer Cements after Recharging with High-Fluoride Dentifrice. Int J Dent [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Feb 9];2019. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31885589/
Nicholson JW. Glass ionomer dental cements: update. Mater Technol [Internet]. 2010 Mar 19 [cited 2017 Nov 16];25(1):8–13. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1179/175355509X12614966220506
Onal B, Pamir T. The two-year clinical performance of esthetic restorative materials in noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc [Internet]. 2005;136(11):1547–55. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16329418
Garoushi S, Vallittu PK LL. Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials. Dent Mater. 2018;30(37(2)):293–300.
Dziuk Y, Chhatwani S, Mohlhenrich SC, Tulka S, Naumova EA, Danesh G. Fluoride release from two types of fluoride-containing orthodontic adhesives: Conventional versus resin-modified glass ionomer cements-An in vitro study. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021 Feb 1 [cited 2022 Feb 10];16(2). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33635885/
Okte Z, Bayrak S, Fidanci UR, Sel T. Fluoride and aluminum release from restorative materials using ion chromatography. J Appl Oral Sci [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2022 Feb 10];20(1):27–31. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22437674/
Burke FJT, Fleming GJP, Owen FJ, Watson DJ. Materials for restoration of primary teeth: 2. Glass ionomer derivatives and compomers. Dent Update. 2002;29(1):10–4, 16–7.
Attar N, Turgut M. Fluoride release and uptake capacities of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2003;
Bansal R, Bansal T. A Comparative Evaluation of the Amount of Fluoride Release and Re-Release after Recharging from Aesthetic Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res [Internet]. 2015 Aug 1 [cited 2022 Feb 10];9(8):ZC11–4. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26436037/
Naoum S, Ellakwa A, Martin F, Swain M. Fluoride release, recharge and mechanical property stability of various fluoride-containing resin composites. Oper Dent [Internet]. 2011 Jul [cited 2022 Feb 10];36(4):422–32. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21819201/
Mass E, Hassan A, Cohen O, Zilberman U. Long-term in-vivo effect of various restorative materials on enamel and dentin of primary molars. Quintessence Int [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 Feb 14];48(8):633–8. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28681046/
Naoum S, Ellakwa A, Martin F, Swain M. Fluoride release, recharge and mechanical property stability of various fluoride-containing resin composites. Oper Dent [Internet]. 2011 Jul [cited 2022 Feb 14];36(4):422–32. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21819201/
Gururaj M, Shetty R, Nayak M, Shetty S, Vijay Kumar CN. Fluoride releasing and uptake capacities of esthetic restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2022 Feb 14];14(5):887–91. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24685793/
Kelić K, Par M, Peroš K, Šutej I, Tarle Z. Fluoride-Releasing Restorative Materials: The Effect of a Resinous Coat on Ion Release. Acta Stomatol Croat [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Feb 14];54(4):371–81. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33642601/
Dasgupta S, Saraswathi MV, Somayaji K, Pentapati KC, Shetty P. Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and recharge potential of novel and traditional fluoride-releasing restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent [Internet]. 2018 Nov 1 [cited 2022 Feb 14];21(6):622. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC6249945/
Harhash AY, ElSayad II, Zaghloul AGS. A comparative in vitro study on fluoride release and water sorption of different flowable esthetic restorative materials. Eur J Dent [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 Feb 14];11(2):174. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC5502560/
Nicholson JW. Fluoride-Releasing Dental Restorative Materials: An Update. Balk J Dent Med. 2014;
Bayrak GD, Sandalli N, Selvi-Kuvvetli S, Topcuoglu N, Kulekci G. Effect of two different polishing systems on fluoride release, surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of newly developed restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent [Internet]. 2017 Nov 12 [cited 2018 Dec 18];29(6):424–34. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28618104
Xu HHK, Moreau JL, Sun L, Chow LC. Novel CaF2 nanocomposite with high strength and fluoride ion release. J Dent Res. 2010;89:739–45.
Paul S, Raina A, Kour S, Mishra S, Bansal M, Sengupta A. Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and re-release and recharge potential of Zirconomer Improved and Cention. J Conserv Dent [Internet]. 2020 Jul 1 [cited 2022 Feb 14];23(4):402. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7883777/
Tiskaya M, Al-eesa NA, Wong FSL, Hill RG. Characterization of the bioactivity of two commercial composites. Dent Mater. 2019 Dec 1;35(12):1757–68.
Panpisut P, Toneluck A. Monomer conversion, dimensional stability, biaxial flexural strength, and fluoride release of resin-based restorative material containing alkaline fillers. Dent Mater J [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Feb 14];39(4):608–15. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32037385/
