Topical fluoride application is able to reduce acid susceptibility of restorative materials

Alternative Direct Restorative Materials for Dental Amalgam: A Concise Review Based on an FDI Policy Statement

Dental restorative procedures remain a cornerstone of dental practice, and for many decades, dental amalgam was the most frequently employed material. However, its use is declining, mainly driven by its poor aesthetics and by the development of tooth-coloured adhesive materials. Furthermore, the Minamata Convention agreed on a phase-down on the use of dental amalgam. This concise review is based on a FDI Policy Statement which provides guidance on the selection of direct restorative materials as alternatives to amalgam. The Policy Statement was informed by current literature, identified mainly from PubMed and the internet. Ultimately, dental, oral, and patient factors should be considered when choosing the best material for each individual case. Dental factors include the dentition, tooth type, and cavity class and extension; oral aspects comprise caries risk profiles and related risk factors; and patient-related aspects include systemic risks/medical conditions such as allergies towards certain materials as well as compliance. Special protective measures (eg, a no-touch technique, blue light protection) are required when handling resin-based materials, and copious water spray is recommended when adjusting or removing restorative materials. Cost and reimbursement policies may need to be considered when amalgam alternatives are used, and the material recommendation requires the informed consent of the patient. There is no single material which can replace amalgam in all applications; different materials are needed for different situations. The policy statement recommends using a patient-centred rather than purely a material-centred approach. Further research is needed to improve overall material properties, the clinical performance, the impact on the environment, and cost-effectiveness of all alternative materials.

Vickers micro-hardness study of the effect of fluoride mouthwash on two types of CAD/CAM ceramic materials erosion

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the protective effects of fluoride mouthwash on the surface micro-hardness of two types of CAD/CAM ceramics after exposure to acidic solutions.

Methods

40 samples (5 × 5 × 3 mm³) were prepared from two different ceramics: Vitabloc Mark II CAD, and IPS e.max CAD. The samples were randomly divided into 5 groups in each ceramic (n = 8) immersed in different solutions: G_s: saliva: G_GA: gastric acid, G_AA: acetic acid, G_FGA: sodium fluoride + gastric acid, G_FAA: sodium fluoride + acetic acid. The microhardness of samples was measured before and after immersion in different solutions by Vickers microhardness tester. By subtracting the microhardness values after and before immersion, the microhardness changes of the samples were obtained. Data were analyzed by Two-way analysis of variance, one-way analysis of variance, and Tukey test (α = 0.05).

Results

Immersion in different solutions reduced the microhardness. Microhardness loss was significantly affected in G _FAA and G _FGA groups in both types of ceramics (P < 0.05). For Vitabloc Mark II groups, the microhardness loss was significantly higher in G_FAA and G_FGA compared to IPS e.max CAD P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Fluoride mouthwash in conjunction with acidic solutions may adversely affect microhardness of Vitabloc Mark II CAD, and IPS e.max CAD that may consequently compromise the clinical service. Vitabloc Mark II CAD was significantly more affected than IPS e.max CAD.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-022-02135-z.

Effect of fluoride varnish on glass ionomer microhardness changes in endogenous acid erosion challenge

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effect of fluoride varnish on glass ionomer microhardness changes after endogenous acid erosion challenge.

METHODOLOGY

In this study, 40 conventional glass ionomer (CGI; Fuji IX) and 40 resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI; Fuji IILC) discs were fabricated and divided into 4 subgroups (n = 10) for immersion in synthetic gastric acid or saliva for 27 h with/without fluoride varnish application. The surface microhardness was measured at baseline and after immersion, and the change in microhardness was calculated. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and T-test.

RESULTS

A reduction in microhardness was noted in all subgroups following immersion. The lowest change in microhardness of both CGI and RMGI occurred in artificial saliva. In CGI groups, the highest reduction in microhardness occurred in synthetic gastric acid with fluoride varnish application, and the reduction was significantly different from that of the CGI group with fluoride varnish application (p value = .01). In RMGI groups, the highest reduction in microhardness was noted in synthetic gastric acid without fluoride varnish application, and the reduction was significantly different from that of the other groups (p value < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to synthetic gastric acid caused a significant reduction in microhardness of RMGI. Varnish application significantly decreased the acid susceptibility of RMGI, but not that of CGI.

Surface roughness of composite resins subjected to hydrochloric acid

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of hydrochloric acid on surface roughness of composite resins subjected to brushing. Sixty samples measuring 2 mm thick x 6 mm diameter were prepared and used as experimental units. The study presented a 3x2 factorial design, in which the factors were composite resin (n=20), at 3 levels: microhybrid composite (Z100), nanofilled composite (FiltekTM Supreme), nanohybrid composite (Ice), and acid challenge (n=10) at 2 levels: absence and presence. Acid challenge was performed by immersion of specimens in hydrochloric acid (pH 1.2) for 1 min, 4 times per day for 7 days. The specimens not subjected to acid challenge were stored in 15 mL of artificial saliva at 37 oC. Afterwards, all specimens were submitted to abrasive challenge by a brushing cycle performed with a 200 g weight at a speed of 356 rpm, totaling 17.8 cycles. Surface roughness measurements (Ra) were performed and analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test (p≤0.05). Surface roughness values were higher in the presence (1.07±0.24) as compared with the absence of hydrochloric acid (0.72±0.04). Surface roughness values were higher for microhybrid (1.01±0.27) compared with nanofilled (0.68 ±0.09) and nanohybrid (0.48±0.15) composites when the specimens were not subjects to acid challenge. In the presence of hydrochloric acid, microhybrid (1.26±0.28) and nanofilled (1.18±0,30) composites presents higher surface roughness values compared with nanohybrid (0.77±0.15). The hydrochloric acid affected the surface roughness of composite resin subjected to brushing.