ArticlePloS one2021
Fluoride release from two types of fluoride-containing orthodontic adhesives: Conventional versus resin-modified glass ionomer cements-An in vitro study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Additive Incorporation on Fluoride Release of Orthodontic Glass Ionomer Cements and Adhesives: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Construction of caries risk assessment scale and oral microecology analysis of adolescents with fixed orthodontic treatment.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Biofilm-resistant zwitterionic resin-based adhesive for orthodontic bracket-tooth interfaces: an in vitro evaluation.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- An in vitro study of fluoride-preloaded halloysite nanotubes to enhance the fluoride release in conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Correlation between fluoride release, surface hardness and diametral tensile strength of restorative glass ionomer cements.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- A comparative evaluation of fluoride release and rechargeability in conventional GIC (type II), pediatric GIC (type IX), and Cention-N: an in vitro study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024Article
- Improving the Antibacterial Properties of Dental Bonding Materials Loaded with Silver Compounds.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride Release from Four Commercially Available Pediatric Dental Restorative Materials.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2023Article
- The effect of pressure changes during simulated diving on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.Diving and hyperbaric medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluating fluoride uptake of dentin from different restorative materials at various time intervals - In vitro study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDevelopment of white spot lesions (WSLs) during orthodontic treatment is a common risk factor. Fixation of the orthodontic appliances with glass ionomer cements could reduce the prevalence of WSL's due to their fluoride release capacities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences of fluoride release properties from resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs).
methodsThe resin-modified GICs Fuji ORTHO LC (GC Orthodontics), Meron Plus QM (VOCO), as well as the conventional GICs Fuji ORTHO (GC Orthodontics), Meron (VOCO) and Ketac Cem Easymix (3M ESPE) were tested in this study. The different types of GICs were applied to hydroxyapatite discs according to the manufacturer's instructions and stored in a solution of TISAB III (Total Ionic Strength Adjustment Buffer III) and fluoride-free water at 37°C. Fluoride measurements were made after 5 minutes, 2 hours, 24 hours, 14 days, 28 days, 2 months, 3 months and 6 months. One factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for the overall comparison of the cumulative fluoride release (from measurement times of 5 minutes to 6 months) between the different materials with the overall level of significance set to 0.05. Tukey's post hoc test was used for post hoc pairwise comparisons in the cumulative fluoride release between the different materials.
resultsThe cumulative fluoride release (mean ± sd) in descending order was: Fuji ORTHO LC (221.7 ± 10.29 ppm), Fuji ORTHO (191.5 ± 15.03 ppm), Meron Plus QM (173.0 ± 5.89 ppm), Meron (161.3 ± 7.84 ppm) and Ketac Cem Easymix (154.6 ± 6.09 ppm) within 6 months. Analysis of variance detected a significant difference in the cumulative fluoride release between at least two of the materials (rounded p-value < 0.001). Pairwise analysis with Tukey's post hoc test showed a significant difference in the cumulative fluoride release for all the comparisons except M and MPQM (p = 0.061) and KCE and M (p = 0.517).
conclusionFluoride ions were released cumulatively over the entire test period for all products. When comparing the two products from the same company (Fuji ORTHO LC vs. Fuji ORTHO from GC Orthodontics Europe GmbH and Meron Plus QM vs. Meron from VOCO GmbH, Mannheim, Germany), it can be said that the resin-modified GICs have a higher release than conventional GICs. The highest individual fluoride release of all GICs was at 24 hours. A general statement, whether resin-modified or conventional GICs have a higher release of fluoride cannot be made.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.