Abstract:Background: Orthodontic treatment has gained popularity since beginning of era of dentistry. Now a day, everyone is conscious about their appearance, smile and function. During orthodontic treatment use of brackets and adhesives are common. The bonding of brackets will cause demineralization which requires the fluoridation. So the study has been under- taken to analyze the pattern of fluoride release by commercially available adhesive bonding material for the prevention of demineralization. Aim: To evaluate and compare the clinical significance of quantity and pattern of fluoride release from three commercially available adhesives. Objectives: To assess the pattern of fluoride release and quantity, to reduce the decalcification of enamel around orthodontic brackets and bands during treatment and to prevent further use of topical fluoride both office and self-use agents for prevention of demineralization/for remineralization. Materials and methods: The comparison of quantity and pattern of fluoride release study involved commercially available bonding adhesives. They are: Group I--resin reinforced glass Ionomer light cure material (OrthoLC), Group II--fluoride releasing composite resin material (Excel) and Group III--conventional composite (Relay-a-bond) evaluated on 78 freshly extracted premolar teeth divided into three groups consisting 26 specimens in each group. The prepared specimens were stored in artificial saliva at 37°C in an incubator for subsequent fluoride analysis using ORION ion selective electrode coupled with ionalyzer 901. Fluoride analysis made at 24 hours intervals for first 3 consecutive days and thereafter at the end of 10th, 17th, 24th and 31st day of bonding. The data obtained were tabulated and interpreted by statistical analysis using 't' test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Observations and results: The quantity of fluoride release in groups I and II was significant even at the end of 31st day. The one-way AVOVA showed intra and inter group significance in the quantity of fluoride release. But group III with zero fluoride release with significant decalcification on enamel which requires external use of topical fluorides. The pattern of fluoride released was 3.06 ppm for group I and 2.01 ppm for group II and was declined sharply after 24 hours; and continued to decline in subsequent weeks. Mean quantity of fluoride release by group I was 15.08 ppm were as group II was 9.02 ppm over the test period of 31 days. At the end of 31st day the group I bonding adhesive was releasing considerable amount of fluoride compared to group II whereas group III was nil. At all the periods inter and intra group mean values were highly significant. And group III acted as base line or control group as it was non-fluoride releasing material. Conclusion: Both the fluoride releasing adhesive bond material are useful to reduce the risk of demineralization and further prevent the usage of topical fluoride application and reduce cost and clinical visiting time for both patient and clinician.

In vitro comparative fluoride release, and weight and volume change in light-curing and self-curing glass ionomer materials

Evaluation and Comparison of Fracture Strength and Fluoride Releasing Properties of New Alkasite Materials with Conventional Restorative Material, Bulk Fill Composite and Glass Ionomer Cement: An In-Vitro Study

The influence of light‐curing time on fluoride release, surface topography, and bacterial adhesion in resin‐modified glass ionomer cements: AFM and SEM in vitro study

Fluoride release from aged resin composites containing fluoridated glass filler

Comparative study of two bioactive dental materials

Fluoride release and uptake by glass-ionomers and related materials and its clinical effect

Evaluating the Mechanical Properties of Restorative Glass Ionomers Cements

Comparative study of physical-chemical properties of bioactive glass ionomer cement

Mechanical Properties and Ion Release from Fibre-Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Fiber-reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement Restorations Immersed in Three Different Beverages: In Vitro Study

Comparative evaluation of microleakage between bulk esthetic materials versus resin-modified glass ionomer to restore Class II cavities in primary molars

A Scanning Electron Microscope Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Fluoride-releasing Dental Restorative Materials to Prevent Enamel Demineralization: An In Vitro Study

Comparative Evaluation of the Fluoride Releasing Ability and Microbial Attachment of Glass-Hybrid Restorative Material

In-vitro-cytotoxicity of self-adhesive dental restorative materials

A Comparative Clinical Study of the Self-Adhering Flowable Composite Resin Vertise Flow and the Traditional Flowable Composite Resin Premise Flowable

Comparison of Class II Bulk-Fill, Self-Adhesive Composites, Alkasite, and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Restorations in Terms of Marginal and Internal Adaptation

[Fluoride Release and Recharge Properties of Six Restorative Materials].

Effect of Early Water Exposure on the Strength of Glass Ionomer Restoratives

Ion release of the glass ionomer restoration with silver diamine fluoride dentin pretreatment

Evaluation and comparison of quantity and pattern of fluoride release from orthodontic adhesives: an in vitro study

An in Vitro Study on the Secondary Caries-Prevention Properties of Three Restorative Materials