Demineralization around orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and fluoride-releasing resin composite. Evaluating the effects of fluoride-releasing dental materials on adjacent interproximal caries. Mineral loss on adjacent enamel glass ionomer cements restorations after cariogenic and erosive challenges. A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients. Hypermineralization of Dentinal Lesions Adjacent to Glass-ionomer Cement Restorations Inhibition of demineralization adjacent to tooth-colored restorations in primary teeth after 2 in vitro challenges. Effect of Microleakage and Fluoride on Enamel-Dentine Demineralization around Restorations Demineralization of enamel in relation to the fluoride release of materials. In vivo inhibition of demineralization around orthodontic brackets. In situ anticariogenic potential of glass ionomer cement. Effect of glass-ionomer cement lining on postoperative sensitivity in occlusal cavities restored with resin composite--a randomized clinical trial. In situ effects of restorative materials on dental biofilm and enamel demineralisation. Effect of Fluoridated Sealants on Adjacent Tooth Surfaces Clinical and microbiologic evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer cement for orthodontic bonding. In vitro bond strengths of resin modified glass ionomer cements and composite resin self-cure adhesives: introduction of an adhesive system with increased bond strength and inhibition of decalcification. Retention and caries preventive effects of a GIC and a resin-based fissure sealant. A new self-curing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets in vivo. Two-year clinical performance of Class V resin-modified glass-lonomer and resin composite restorations. Influence of Fluoride-Releasing Restorative Material on Root Dentine Secondary Caries in situ Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations. Fluoride release and cariostatic ability of a compomer and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement used for orthodontic bonding. In situ assessment of effects of the bromide- and fluoride-incorporating adhesive systems on biofilm and secondary caries.
PURPOSE Enamel demineralization adjacent to orthodontic brackets is one of the risks associated with orthodontic treatment . Glass ionomer cements have been shown to decrease enamel demineralization adjacent to brackets and b and s but do not exhibit bond strengths comparable to resin composites . The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare a fluoride-releasing resin composite versus a resin-modified glass ionomer cement for inhibition of enamel demineralization surrounding orthodontic brackets . METHODS Forty-five teeth were r and omly assigned to 3 groups of 15 teeth . Fifteen were bonded with Concise ( 3 M ) , a non-fluoride-releasing resin composite ( control ) ; 15 teeth were bonded with Light Bond ( Reliance ) , a fluoride-releasing resin composite ; and 15 teeth were bonded with Fuji Ortho LC ( GC Corporation ) , a resin-modified glass ionomer cement . The teeth were placed in an artificial caries solution to create lesions . Following sectioning of the teeth in a buccolingual direction , polarized light microscopy was utilized to evaluate enamel demineralization adjacent to the orthodontic bracket . The area of the lesion was measured 100 microns from the orthodontic bracket and bonding agent . RESULTS MANOVA ( P < .0001 ) and Duncan 's test ( P < .05 ) indicated the resin-modified glass ionomer cement ( Fuji Ortho LC ) and the fluoride-releasing resin composite ( Light Bond ) had significantly less adjacent enamel demineralization than the non-fluoride-releasing resin composite control . However , there was no significant difference between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement and the fluoride-releasing resin composite . CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this in vitro study , it can be concluded that Fuji Ortho LC and Light Bond exhibit significant inhibition of adjacent demineralization compared to the non-fluoride-releasing control BACKGROUND The authors examined several restorative material s to evaluate their ability to inhibit demineralization and enhance remineralization of incipient carious lesions on the interproximal enamel of teeth adjacent to those restored with the material s. METHODS Twenty-one subjects in need of a crown on a m and ibular molar and a Class II inlay on an adjacent tooth took part in this six-phase study . Artificial enamel lesions were created and positioned within the interproximal portion of a crown . Lesions were photographed with polarized light microscopy and characterized before and after 30-day intraoral exposures . Each phase included the placement of a new section in the crown model and a new Class II inlay restorative material in the adjacent tooth . RESULTS Results demonstrated that nonfluori date d resin composite , fluori date d resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material s , when placed in subjects who brushed with a fluori date d dentifrice , demonstrated significantly ( P < .05 ) less enamel demineralization than the nonfluori date d resin composite control placed in subjects who brushed with a nonfluori date d dentifrice . The resin-modified glass ionomer cement , however , even when brushed with a nonfluori date d dentifrice , exhibited significantly ( P < .05 ) less demineralization than the nonfluori date d resin composite control brushed with a nonfluori date d dentifrice . CONCLUSIONS Resin-modified glass ionomer cement appears to significantly inhibit demineralization of interproximal enamel of teeth adjacent to those restored with the material . CLINICAL IMPLICATION S Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations can enhance prevention of enamel demineralization on adjacent teeth OBJECTIVES the purpose of this study was to determine the mineral loss on surrounding enamel restored with glass ionomer cements ( GIC ) after erosive and cariogenic challenges . METHODS Bovine enamel specimens were r and omly assigned into six groups according to the restorative material : G1 - composite resin ; G2 - high viscous GIC ; G3 - resin-modified glass ionomer with nanoparticles ; G4 - encapsulated resin-modified GIC ; G5 - encapsulated high viscous GIC ; G6 - resin-modified GIC . After restorative procedures , half of specimens in each group were su bmi tted to caries challenge using a pH cycling model for 5 days , and the other half were su bmi tted to erosive challenge in citric acid for 10 min . Before and after the challenges , surface Knoop microhardness assessment s were performed and mineral changes were calculated for adjacent enamel at different distances from restorative margin . RESULTS Data were compared for significant differences using two-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls tests ( p<0.05 ) . Erosive challenge significantly reduced enamel surface hardness , but no significant difference was observed irrespectively restorative material s ( p>0.05 ) . The cariogenic challenge promoted a higher surface hardness loss for the resin-modified GIC ( G4 ) and only for the High viscous GIC ( G2 ) an increase in surface hardness was observed . For enamel analyses , significant differences were observed with respect to the different material s ( p<0.001 ) and distances ( p=0.023 ) . Specimens restored with the composite resin presented higher mineral loss and specimens restored with the conventional high viscous GIC and the encapsulated resin-modified GIC presented the lowest values for mineral loss . CONCLUSION The GICs exerts protective effect only for cariogenic challenge Controversy exists as to whether there is less secondary caries at the margins of glass ionomer restorations compared with other material s that do not release fluoride . This study examined the incidence of secondary caries for three types of restorative material s in Class V restorations in xerostomic patients . The study group consisted of 45 high caries-risk adult patients who had undergone head and neck irradiation for the treatment of cancer . All were substantially xerostomic and in need of at least three restorations in the same arch . Every patient received a restoration with each of the test material s , a conventional glass ionomer ( GI ) , a resin modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) and a resin composite ( C ) . Patients were instructed in the daily use of a neutral pH sodium fluoride gel in custom trays . Recall appointments were made at 6 , 12 , 18 and 24 months , and the restorations were examined for material loss , marginal integrity and recurrent caries at the restoration margin . Fluoride compliance was determined at each recall period and recorded as the percentage of recommended use during that interval . Patients were categorized at the end of the study as fluoride non-users if their average compliance was 50 % or less . Those with greater than 50 % compliance were categorized as fluoride users . In the latter group , no recurrent caries was found for any of the restorations , whereas a material -dependent incidence of recurrent caries was found in the fluoride non-user group . None of the GI , one RMGI and eight C restorations failed due to recurrent caries . For the fluoride non-user patients , Fishers exact test ( p=0.05 ) showed no statistical difference between GI and RMGI but statistical differences were found among those material s and resin composite at each recall period . Recurrent caries reductions for GI and RMGI relative to C were greater than 80 % in xerostomic patients not using topical fluoride supplementation Previous reports have shown a release of fluoride from glass-ionomer cement ( GIC ) restorations into the oral fluids . Fluoride in the ambient fluids has a caries-preventive effect by enhancing remineralization and inhibiting demineralization of the dental hard tissues . Therefore , the current investigation was undertaken to determine whether GIC fillings could contribute to the remineralization of caries lesions in dentin . Small circular preparations were made in disks of dentin which had incipient caries-like lesions in the remaining tissue . The preparations were filled with amalgam or composite material s ( as controls ) or with GIC . The specimens thus contained a restoration close to a dentinal caries-like lesion . The specimens were placed contralaterally in the buccal surfaces of removable partial dentures and were worn intra-orally by volunteers for a 12-week experimental period , after which the specimens were sectioned and analyzed by microradiography . All specimens with GIC restorations exhibited hypermineralization in the tissue bordering the filling and in the wall of the preparation which had been in contact with the restoration . The ( caries-like ) lesions were remineralized , even under conditions of heavy plaque formation . In contrast , specimens with amalgam or composite restorations showed further extensive demineralization . This study demonstrates a significant remineralization potential exerted by the fluoride-releasing GIC restorative material . Consequently , the choice of the restorative material might be crucial for the occurrence or prevention of recurrent caries around restorations PURPOSE As clinical diagnosis of secondary caries is the most common reason for restoration replacement , fluoride-releasing restorative material s have been developed to address this problem . The purpose s of this study were to verify demineralization inhibition produced by 5 restorative material s su bmi tted to two methods of in vitro cariogenic challenge and verify whether these methods influence material behavior by means of polarized light microscopy and microhardness . METHODS Class V cavities were prepared on buccal surfaces of 100 extracted primary molars and r and omly restored with 1 of the 4 fluoride-releasing material s , Fuji IX , Vitremer , Dyract , Tetric Ceram , and Filtek Z250 as control material ( N=10 ) . Specimens were su bmi tted to in vitro caries induction by two different methods , acid gel immersion , and pH cycling . Teeth su bmi tted to gel were then sectioned and prepared for polarized light microscopy in water , while teeth cycled were prepared for microhardness evaluation . RESULTS Polarized light microscopy : Means of demineralization areas ( microm(2 ) ) differed significantly , depending on the restorative material . Tukey 's test revealed the smallest demineralization areas adjacent to Fuji IX and Vitremer restorations , with no difference between them ( P>.05 ) . The greatest demineralization area mean values were verified using Dyract and Filtek Z250 , without differences between them ( P>.05 ) . Microhardness : Glass ionomer cements ( GICs ) performed better on the area of great cariogenic challenge , closer to the surface , than other material s indicating minor mineral loss during pH cycling . The compomer Dyract presented similar performance to GICs and composite resin Tetric Ceram , but it was better than Filtek Z250 . CONCLUSION The experimental model of caries lesion induction may influence material performance . GICs , however , are superior in preventing in vitro demineralization independently of the method There is no consensus about an association between microleakage and secondary caries , especially considering the presence of fluoride ( F ) at the tooth/restoration interface . Thus , a r and omized , double-blind , crossover study was carried out to evaluate in situ the effect of microleakage on caries around enamel-dentine restorations in the presence of F from dental material s or dentifrice , either alone or in combination . In 4 phases of 14 days each , 14 volunteers wore palatal devices containing dental slabs restored with composite resin ( CR ) or resin-modified glass ionomer cement ( GI ) . Restorations were made without leakage ( L– ) , following the recommended adhesive procedures , or with leakage ( L+ ) , in the absence of adhesive procedures . Plaque-like biofilm ( PLB ) was left to accumulate on the restored slabs , which were exposed extraorally to a 20 % sucrose solution 10 × /day . The volunteers used a non-F ( NF ) or an F ( FD ) dentifrice 3 × /day , depending on the experimental phase . No differences were found between L+ or L– restorations ( p > 0.05 ) . Higher demineralization in both enamel and dentine around CR restorations was observed under NF ( p < 0.05 ) . F concentration was higher in the fluid of PLB exposed to FD or formed onto GI restoration ( p < 0.05 ) . These results suggest that while microleakage does not affect caries development , GI or FD may maintain increased F levels in the PLB , thereby decreasing caries progression PURPOSE To examine the reduction in enamel demineralization provided by fluoride release from a conventional glass-ionomer , a resin-modified glass-ionomer and an experimental fluoride-releasing resin-based composite compared to a conventional resin-based composite control , and to correlate the level of fluoride release with demineralization . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Enamel surfaces of extracted human incisors had a 0.4 mm thick layer of the specified test material carefully placed in a b and across the mid-facial enamel to simulate a cement layer beneath an orthodontic bracket . The top surface of the test material was covered with nail varnish , leaving only the edges of the material exposed to release fluoride . The teeth were additionally covered with nail varnish to within 1 mm of the test material . Each group of teeth was placed into separate volumes of unstirred demineralizing solution at a pH of 4.7 for 4 days . The specimens were sectioned and examined by polarized light microscopy . Lesion areas were measured at distances from 100 - 800 microm away from the test material . Fluoride release for the test material s was measured for periods up to 5 months . RESULTS All of the fluoride-releasing material s demonstrated a statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ) degree of protection of enamel from demineralization compared to the non-fluoride control material . The degree of protection was greatest near the material , but lesion areas increased with distance in an inverse relationship to the amount of fluoride release . Lesions were displaced from the region near the material s and the mean displacement was directly related to amount of fluoride release . The mean lesion areas for each distance decreased with the logarithm of the cumulative fluoride release Demineralization around orthodontic appliances is a problem . Suboptimal oral hygiene , long intervals between appointments , and potentially poor patient cooperation with using fluoride dentifrices and mouth rinses necessitate a compliance-free means of preventing tooth decay . The hypothesis of this study was that fluoride released by glass ionomer cement inhibits the formation of carious lesions around orthodontic brackets in vivo . Brackets were bonded on 2 first premolars in 21 r and omized , consecutively selected patients 11 to 18 years old . Eleven test-group subjects were bonded with fluoride-releasing glass ionomer cement , and 10 control subjects were bonded with composite resin ( no fluoride ) . The teeth were extracted after 4 weeks , sectioned , and evaluated quantitatively by cross-sectional microhardness testing . Fluoride levels in patient saliva were measured by the Taves diffusion method in sample s taken at days 0 ( baseline ) , 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 14 , 21 , and 28 to determine whether fluoride from the glass ionomer cement influenced the overall intraoral fluoride levels . The results demonstrated significantly more demineralization around the brackets of the control patients ( P < .01 , Wilcoxon signed rank test ) . For whole-mouth salivary fluoride levels , no significant overall difference between the groups ( P > .05 ) and no noticeable trend within groups ( P > .05 ) were found . These results indicate that using fluoride-releasing glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets successfully inhibited caries in vivo . This cariostatic effect was localized to the area around the brackets and was statistically significant after 4 weeks The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of fluoride in plaque formed on glass ionomer cement or composite and to evaluate the effects of fluoride released on growth of cariogenic microflora , fluoride uptake , and secondary caries formation under in situ conditions of a high cariogenic challenge . Ten adult volunteers took part in this crossover study performed in two phases of 28 days . Eighty enamel blocks were r and omly restored with glass ionomer cement ( Chelon-Fil-Espe ) or composite ( Silux ) . During each phase of the study , an acrylic resin appliance , containing four enamel blocks restored with the same material , was constructed for each of the volunteers . During the experimental period , all subjects used fluoride-free dentifrice , refrained from brushing the restored enamel blocks , and immersed the appliances into 20 % sucrose solution eight times a day . Fluoride levels , mutans streptococci , and lactobacilli were assessed in dental plaque . Fluoride uptake and microhardness profiles were determined in enamel around the restorations . Statistical analyses indicated a significantly higher level of fluoride ( p < 0.05 ) and a lower level of mutans streptococci plaque formed on glass ionomer cement . Analysis of variance in a split-plot model indicated that in the enamel around the glass ionomer restoration the fluoride uptake was significantly greater ( p < 0.025 ) and the mineral loss significantly lower ( p < 0.01 ) . The results show that glass ionomer cement presents a broad anticariogenic effect and may be of value in preventing secondary caries , even under conditions of a high caries risk This study investigated the ability of a glass-ionomer cement ( GIC ) lining to reduce postoperative sensitivity in occlusal cavities restored with resin composite . In addition , the effects of a total-etch and self-etch adhesive on postoperative sensitivity were also compared . Patients who had moderate to deep occlusal caries of at least one molar were recruited . Overall , 103 restorations were placed in 70 participants , with an average age of 22.8 + /- 3.8 years . Preoperatively , each tooth was evaluated for cold-stimulated tooth sensitivity using a visual analog scale . If present , tooth sensitivity induced by cold/hot drinks or occlusal function was also noted . Caries was stained with a caries detector dye , then removed using slow-speed burs and h and excavators . The cavity was restored with one of four r and omly allocated restorative procedures : 1 ) bonded with a two-step , total-etch adhesive ( Single Bond 2 ) ; 2 ) lined with a resin-modified GIC liner ( Fuji Lining LC ) , then bonded with total-etch adhesive ; 3 ) bonded with a two-step , self-etch adhesive ( Clearfil SE Bond ) and 4 ) lined with the GIC liner , then bonded with self-etch adhesive . The cavities were incrementally filled with a nanofilled hybrid resin composite . At recall , postoperative sensitivity was evaluated at one week and one month . Overall , postoperative sensitivity in daily function was rare . No significant difference in postoperative sensitivity , either in daily function or in response to a cold stimulus , was observed between the restorative procedures with or without the GIC liner , regardless of the adhesive used ( p > 0.05 ) . In addition , no difference in postoperative sensitivity was noted between use of the self-etch and total-etch adhesive OBJECTIVES Since secondary caries is one of the main reasons for replacing restorations , this study assessed the effects of different restorative material s on the microbiological composition of dental biofilm and on enamel demineralisation around the restoration . METHODS A r and omized , double-blind , split-mouth in situ design was conducted in one phase of 14 days , during which , 20 volunteers wore palatal devices containing five human dental enamel slabs . Each slab was r and omly restored with one of the following material s : Filtek-Z-250/Single Bond , control group ( composite resin ) , Permite ( amalgam ) , Fuji II ( encapsulated resin-modified glass ionomer ) , Vitremer ( resin-modified glass ionomer ) and Ketac Molar ( conventional glass ionomer ) . The volunteers used fluoride dentifrice , 3x/day and a 20 % sucrose solution was dripped onto the slabs 8x/day . The biofilm formed on the slabs was analyzed to determine the counts of total streptococci , mutans streptococci and lactobacilli . Enamel demineralisation was determined by cross-sectional microhardness ( CSMH ) at 20 and 70 microm from the margin of the restoration . Kruskal-Wallis and analysis of variance , followed by least mean squares ( LMS ) test , were used to evaluate microbiota and CSMH among the groups . The significance level used was 5 % . RESULTS No statistically significant differences were found in the cariogenic microbiota grown on the slabs . At a 20-mum distance , only Fuji II statistically differed from the other groups , showing the lowest demineralisation . At 70 microm , Fuji II significantly inhibited demineralisation when compared to Permite , Filtek-Z-250 and Ketac Molar . CONCLUSIONS In the context of fluoride dentifrice and under the cariogenic exposure conditions of this study , only the encapsulated resin-modified glass ionomer material provided additional protection against secondary caries A double-blind r and omized clinical trial was performed in 6- to 7-yr-old schoolchildren to evaluate , in a 30-mo period , whether the caries increment on the distal surface of the second primary molars adjacent to permanent first molars sealed with fluoride release compounds would be lower with respect to those adjacent to permanent first molars sealed with a nonfluori date d sealant . In sum , 2,776 subjects were enrolled and r and omly divided into 3 groups receiving sealants on sound first molars : high-viscosity glass ionomer cement ( GIC group ) ; resin-based sealant with fluoride ( fluoride-RB group ) ; and a resin-based sealant without fluoride ( RB group ) . Caries ( D1 – D3 level ) was recorded on the distal surface of the second primary molar , considered the unit of analysis including only sound surfaces at the baseline . At baseline , no differences in caries prevalence were recorded in the 3 groups regarding the considered surfaces . At follow-up , the prevalence of an affected unit of analysis was statistically lower ( p = .03 ) in the GIC and fluoride-RB groups ( p = .04 ) . In the GIC group , fewer new caries were observed in the unit of analysis respect to the other 2 groups . Incidence rate ratios ( IRRs ) were 0.70 ( 95 % confidence interval : 0.50 , 0.68 ; p < .01 ) for GIC vs. RB and 0.79 ( 95 % confidence interval : 0.53 , 1.04 ; p = .005 ) for fluoride-RB vs. RB . Caries incidence was significantly associated with low socioeconomic status ( IRR = 1.18 ; 95 % confidence interval : 1.10 , 1.42 ; p = .05 ) . Dental sealant high-viscosity GIC and fluoride-RB demonstrated protection against dental caries , and there was evidence that these material s afforded additional protection for the tooth nearest to the sealed tooth ( clinical trial registration NCT01588210 ) This study evaluated the clinical performance of a new resin modified glass ionomer cement , Geristore ( Den-Mat Corp. , Santa Maria , Calif. ) , for the bonding of orthodontic brackets and its effect on certain caries-associated microorganisms . This cement has been shown to possess increased mechanical properties and long-term fluoride release . There were 716 brackets bonded in 40 patients ( 17 males and 23 females ) , with a split-mouth technique and a composite resin , Phase II ( Reliance , Itasca , III . )  , as a control . Bond failures were recorded up to 1 year . Plaque scores and plaque sample s were taken from the area of the bonding adhesive in 20 patients , before , at 1 week , and 5 months after the placement of brackets . The plaque sample s were investigated for the presence of Streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli . The overall bond failure rate was found to be 8.9 % for Geristore and 3.1 % for Phase II ( p < 0.05 ) . Labially , there was no significant difference ( p > 0.05 ) in bond failure rate : 3.8 % for Geristore and 1.7 % for Phase II . The proportions of S. mutans and lactobacilli in plaque taken from around Geristore cement were reduced at 1 week and 5 months , when compared with Phase II resin , and this reduction was statistically significant ( p < 0.05 ) at 1 week . Results of this study suggest that Geristore may be of use in the labial segments , especially in caries prone patients , in whom demineralization at debond may present an esthetic and restorative problem several years after treatment This study evaluated the shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of 5 self-cure adhesives to comparatively evaluate a new adhesive system . Extracted human incisors were r and omly divided into 7 test groups of 20 each .  Incisor mesh-backed brackets were bonded to the tooth specimens in each group with their respective adhesive according to the manufacturer 's instructions . The specimens were thermocycled for 2 weeks at temperatures from 5 degrees to 55 degrees C to simulate oral conditions and debonded using an Instron machine . Acceptable bond strength parameters were present with the Contacto No-Mix ( composite resin containing glass ionomer 8.75 MPa ) and Fuji Ortho SC with acid conditioning ( 6.98 MPa ) . Contacto No-Mix had a higher bond strength ( 11.2 MPa ) when microetching and Megabond were employed than when these adjuncts were not employed . When FUJI Ortho SC specimens were conditioned with polyacrylic acid , they showed a higher bond strength ( 6.98 MPa ) than when bonded to unetched teeth ( 5.41 MPa ) . In test 3 , EXPT-fluoride adhesive ( AF ) demonstrated a higher bond strength ( 13.44 MPa ) than both resin composite Contacto No-Mix ( 8.8 MPa , GAC 7.4 MPa ) and FUJI Ortho SC ( 5.41 MPa ) . Expt AF ( Test 3 ) and Concise had equal bond strengths , however , the former can potentially release fluoride from the glass ionomer . Although the Abstract Fissure sealing using partially filled resins is an established caries preventive practice . Glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) sealants may offer additional advantages due to their ability to bond chemically to enamel and release fluoride . The aim of this study was to compare the caries preventive effect and retention of a GIC and a resin-based sealant . Ketac-fil ® was tested against a chemically cured resin-based material ( Delton ® ) using a split mouth design . Perth ( Western Australia ) schoolchildren ( n= 465 ) , mean age 7 yr±0.72 ( S.D. ) , received sealants  on the occlusal surfaces of sound homologous permanent first molar pairs .  Test ( GIC ) and control ( resin ) sealants were systematic ally allocated to left and right sides based on the child 's month of birth , and were placed by dental therapists . After 3.64±0.11 yr , 415 children were examined by different clinicians , and the clinical status of the teeth and the extent of sealant retention recorded . Sealants were deemed retained when at least 2/3 of the fissure pattern was still sealed . In 252 tooth pairs , neither sealant was retained to this extent . In 71 pairs , the GIC was not retained and the resin sealant retained . In 40 pairs the reverse occurred ( McNemar 's test , χ2= 8.66 , P < 0.005 ) . Net gain ( additional lesions prevented by the test agent per 100 treatments ) was 6.1%(95 % CI 3.3 % , 8.9 % ) . Effectiveness of the GIC was 80.6 % ( 95 % CI 59.6 % , 90.7 % ) . The relative risk of caries in test teeth was 0.19 ( 95 % CI 0.09 , 0.40 ) . The study suggests that complete retention of GIC sealant is not necessary for caries prevention in newly erupted permanent first molars A new self-curing ( chemically cured ) resin-modified glass-ionomer cement , Fuji Ortho ( GC International ) , is based on the technology of hybrid glass-ionomer restorative material s and features chemical adhesion to tooth structure and long-term fluoride release . This article describes a 12-month clinical evaluation of  Fuji Ortho for the direct bonding of orthodontic ( metal ) brackets with System 1 + ( Ormco Corp. ) as a control . Three failures of Fuji Ortho occurred from a sample of 60 ( 5 % ) , with five failures of the composite resin from a sample of 60 ( 8.3 % ) . No statistical significance was seen between these results . Fuji Ortho is a satisfactory adhesive for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets where there are no occlusal interferences While a one-year report had been previously published , this study was undertaken to evaluate the clinical performance and appearance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite over two years . Thirty-seven pairs of restorations of FujI II LC and Z 250/Single Bond were placed in caries-free cervical erosion/abfraction lesions without tooth preparation . Restorations were clinical ly evaluated at baseline , 6 , 12 , 18 and 24 months using modified Ryge/USPHS criteria . No statistically significant difference ( p = 0.13 ) was observed in the overall performance of the material s. Retention was 96 % for the resin-modified glass ionomer and 81 % for the resin composite , with no additional restorations of either material lost after one year . As previously reported , retention of the Z 250 restorations at six months was below the minimum specified in the ADA Acceptance Program for Dentin and Enamel Adhesives . The resin composite restorations generally had a better appearance , with a 100 % alpha rating in color match , versus 85 % for the resin-modified glass ionomer The usefulness of fluoride-releasing restorations in  secondary caries prevention may be question ed because of the presence of other common sources of fluoride and because of ageing of the restorations . This study tested the hypothesis that glass-ionomer cement restorations , either aged or unaged , do not prevent secondary root caries , when fluoride dentifrice is frequently used . Sixteen volunteers wore palatal appliances in two phases of 14 days , according to a 2 × 2 crossover design . In each phase the appliance was loaded with bovine root dentine slabs restored with either glass-ionomer or resin composite , either aged or unaged . Specimens were exposed to cariogenic challenge 4 times/day and to fluori date d dentifrice 3 times/day . The fluoride content in the biofilm ( FB ) formed on slabs and the mineral loss ( ΔZ ) around the restorations were analysed . No differences were found between restorative material s regarding the FB and the ΔZ , for either aged ( p = 0.792 and p = 0.645 , respectively ) or unaged ( p = 1.00 and p = 0.278 , respectively ) groups . Under the cariogenic and fluoride dentifrice exposure conditions of this study , the glass-ionomer restoration , either aged or unaged , did not provide additional protection against secondary root caries BACKGROUND The authors clinical ly examined two restorative material s to evaluate their effectiveness in Class II restorations in primary molars and their ability to inhibit recurrent caries . METHODS Forty subjects , each in need of two Class II restorations in primary molars , took part in this study . Each patient received one  Class II restoration of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and one of amalgam . The authors evaluated the restorations at six-month , one-year , two-year and three-year recall appointments . On exfoliation , teeth with experimental restorations were retrieved and microscopically examined for inhibition of demineralization at restoration margins . RESULTS The results of the clinical evaluation demonstrated no significant differences between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations and the amalgam restorations ( P < .05 ) . Polarized light microscopic examination of the returned teeth that were restored as a part of this study indicated that the resin-modified glass ionomer cement had significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam ( P < .0001 ) . CONCLUSIONS The resin-modified glass ionomer cement functioned clinical ly as well as amalgam for Class II restorations in primary molars . However , the resin-modified glass ionomer exhibited significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam . CLINICAL IMPLICATION S Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorative material functions well for Class II restorations in primary molars and exhibits less recurrent caries at restoration margins than does amalgam This study evaluated the clinical performance and appearance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite over one year . Thirty-seven pairs of restorations of Fuji II LC and Z250/Single Bond were placed in caries-free cervical erosion/abfraction lesions without tooth preparation . Restorations were clinical ly evaluated at baseline and 6 and 12 months , using modified Ryge/USPHS criteria . No significant difference ( p>0.05 ) was observed in performance of both material s , although retention of the Z250 restorations was below the minimum specified in the ADA Acceptance Program for Dentin and Enamel Adhesives . Little difference in the restorations ' appearance was observed OBJECTIVES The aims of this study were to compare the local and systemic uptake of fluoride released from a compomer material ( Dyract Ortho ) and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement ( Vitremer ) with that of a conventional resin adhesive ( Right-On ) and to compare the cariostatic ability of each of the test material s with that of the resin control . METHODS Twenty six patients were r and omly allocated to have a bracket bonded to a premolar on one side of the arch with one of the test material s and on the opposite side with the control material . Premolars destined for extraction as part of an orthodontic treatment plan were selected for bonding . A non-fluoride toothpaste was used by all participants for 4 weeks prior to bracket bonding and throughout the 4 week trial period . Fluoride release was measured in saliva , plaque and urine sample s taken pre-bonding and 4 weeks post-bonding . Enamel demineralisation was assessed by scoring the buccal surface of each extracted tooth using a caries index . RESULTS Neither Vitremer nor  Dyract Ortho altered salivary or urinary fluoride concentration significantly 4 weeks post-bonding but plaque fluoride concentration increased significantly around premolars bonded with Vitremer . The test material s as a combined group were associated with significantly less demineralisation than the control material but there was no significant difference in cariostatic ability detected between either Dyract Ortho or Vitremer when each group was compared separately with the control . CONCLUSIONS Fluoride released from Dyract Ortho or Vitremer is likely to exert a local and not a systemic effect . In a 4-week clinical study , the cariostatic ability of the fluoride-releasing cements , as a combined group , was superior to that of the non-fluoride releasing control but there was no significant difference in cariostatic ability between the two test material s when each test group was compared separately with the control AIM This in situ study assessed the effects of adhesive systems containing or not fluoride and /or the antibacterial monomer 12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide ( MDPB ) on the microbiological composition of dental biofilm and enamel demineralization . MATERIAL S AND METHODS During two phases of 14 days , ten volunteers wore intraoral palatal appliances containing two slabs of human enamel according to a double-blind , crossover design . The slabs were r and omly restored using a composite resin and one of the following adhesive systems : All-Bond SE(TM ) ( self-etch , fluoride/MDPB free adhesive , AB ) and Clearfl Protect Bond ( self-etch containing fluoride and MDPB adhesive , CB ) . The biofilm formed on the slabs was analyzed with regard to total and mutans streptococci and lactobacilli counts . Demineralization represented by integrated area of hardness × lesion depth Delta S ( ΔS ) was determined on enamel by analysis of cross-sectional microhardness , at 20 and 70 μm from the restoration margin . Data were analyzed by ANOVA . RESULTS No statistically significant difference was found either in enamel demineralization or in the microbiological composition of dental biofilm . CONCLUSION All adhesive systems containing or not fluoride and /or MDPB tested were unable to inhibit secondary caries in the in situ model used in the present research
The evidence suggests that RM-GIC is associated with a higher reduction of demineralization in adjacent hard tooth tissue than composite resin without fluoride .
No difference was found when RM-GIC was compared with fluoride-containing composite resin .
RM-GIC showed efficacy in reducing demineralization .
UNLABELLED The purpose of this systematic review was to quantitatively find out whether resin-modified glass-ionomers ( RM-GIC ) , in comparison to fluoride-containing composite resin and composite resin without fluoride , are associated with a more effective reduction of demineralization in hard tooth tissues under caries challenge .