In vitro effect of topical fluoride on dental porcelain.

University of Michigan, School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Mich., USA
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (Impact Factor: 1.42). 04/1986; 55(3):385-8. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90126-5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Fifty-seven porcelain samples were randomly subjected to a variety of topical fluorides for time intervals of 4 to 64 minutes. Half of each porcelain surface was masked to prevent contact with the fluoride. Measurements of roughness were made for the fluoride-treated and the untreated porcelain surfaces to evaluate the effect of the different fluoride preparations over time. The resulting surfaces were also examined using an SEM. Conclusions from this study include the following. Statistically significant differences in roughness were found among surfaces exposed to 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel, 8% stannous fluoride, and the control surfaces. There were no significant differences in roughness between the test and control surfaces with 0.05%, 0.2%, and 2% sodium fluoride solutions or 0.4% stannous fluoride gel. The dentist should be aware of the potentially deleterious effects of prescribing or administering a topical fluoride for patients with porcelain/metal restorations.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: summary Ceramic fractures are serious and costly problems in dentistry. Moreover, they pose an aesthetic and functional dilemma both for the patient and the dentist. This problem has created demand for the development of practical repair options which do not necessitate the removal and remake of the entire restoration. Published literature on repair techniques for fractured fixed partial dentures, concentrating on the data obtained both from in vitro and in vivo studies, reveals that the repair techniques based on sandblasting and silanization are the most durable in terms of adhesive and cohesive failures compared with those using different etching agents.
    Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 01/2003; 30(2):194 - 203. · 1.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The surface roughness of prosthodontic materials is an important factor that influences the amount of microbial plaque accumulation, thereby increasing the risk of caries and periodontal inflammation of abutment or adjacent teeth. Few studies exist that have investigated the influence of disinfectant materials on the surface roughness of prosthodontic materials. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the roughness changes in metal-ceramic and IPS Empress 2 ceramic structures, finished by either manual-polishing or glazing, followed by immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde solution for either 30 minutes (disinfection procedure) and 10 hours (sterilization procedure). The study consisted of 26 metalceramic specimens and 26 Empress 2 specimens measuring 10 x 10 x 2 mm. One-half of each group of specimens was polished by using rotatory instruments and the other half was glazed in a glazing oven (subgroups). Afterwards, the specimens were submitted to sterilization and disinfection in 2% glutaraldehyde for either 30 minutes or 10 hours, respectively. 3 specimens from each group were sterilized in autoclave, and for control group, the initial measurement of each specimen before the disinfection and sterilization procedures was obtained. The surface roughness was determined by a Hommel Tester T-1000, using the mean arithmetic Ra as roughness parameter. The results were statistically analyzed using a 4-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) method for individual comparisons among the means and the Tukey test at a significance level of p<.05. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences of roughness in both groups, after immersion in chemical solution and sterilization in autoclave (p<.05). The mean of ceramic materials ranged from .631mm to 1.687mm in surface roughness. There was a statistically significant difference only among final polishing of ceramics (F=19.00; p<.001) and in the interaction between polishing and material used (F=18.83; p<.001). No significant changes in surface roughness of tested ceramic materials occurred after completion of the disinfection and sterilization procedures used in this study. Clinical implications: Infection control procedures are indispensable steps before cementation of prostheses. Based on the results of this study, prosthodontic materials can be disinfected or sterilized without causing significant changes in surface roughness.
    Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences (ISSN: 1677-3217) Vol 5 Num 16.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Statement of problemThe effect of repeated applications of fluoride solutions and 10% carbamide peroxide on the surface roughness of newer dental porcelains is not completely known.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the surface roughness of 3 different porcelains when exposed to 2 fluoride solutions, a 10% solution of carbamide peroxide, and distilled water.Material and methodsForty discs (10-mm diameter, 2 mm thick) were made of each of the following porcelains: feldspathic porcelain (Ceramco II), low-fusing porcelain (Finesse), and an aluminous porcelain (All-Ceram). Each disc was abraded with a medium-grit diamond bur and auto-glazed. One side of each disc was abraded with a diamond bur and polished using a porcelain polishing kit to simulate a chairside adjustment and polishing. The discs (10 specimens/group) were immersed in 1.23% APF, 0.4% stannous fluoride, 10% carbamide peroxide, and distilled water for 50 seconds (control). The discs in the 10% carbamide peroxide solution were immersed for 48 hours. The surface of each disc was evaluated with surface profilometry (0.1 mm/s speed, 600-μm range). The data were analyzed by factorial analysis of variance and a Tukey multiple comparison test, (α=.05).ResultsThe data showed that the acidulated phosphate fluoride etched the auto-glazed surface of all 3 porcelains. For Finesse specimens, the mean Ra values for the auto-glazed surface were significantly higher than that of the control after immersion in 1.23% APF (mean Ra 0.3 ± 0.06 μm, P<.031). All-Ceram auto-glazed surface specimens had a significantly higher mean Ra value when immersed in the 3 solutions than the control (1.23% APF, 0.4% stannous fluoride, and 10% carbamide peroxide, 0.245 ± 0.115 μm, 0.22 ± 0.104 μm, 0.22 ± 0.04 μm, respectively; P<.002). Ceramco II specimens were affected by all 3 solutions, with the auto-glazed surface having higher Ra values (1.23% APF, 0.4% stannous fluoride, and 10% carbamide peroxide, with mean Ra values of 0.35 ± 0.1 μm, 0.26 ± 0.08 μm, and 0.24 ± .0.05 μm, respectively, P=.001). Immersion in the 3 solutions had no effect on the polished surfaces of all-ceramic specimens tested.ConclusionPrior to the use of fluoride and 10% carbamide peroxide, dentists should ascertain the type of porcelain restoration present to prevent a roughened surface from occurring.
    Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 08/2004; · 1.42 Impact Factor