Search for: [Abstract = "In the case of compomer material the mass released fluoride ions during entirely investigation period slowly, increased though area of both tested materials were equal. The pattern of fluoride ions releasing for both materials was different. Glassionomer cement showed initially rapid fluoride burst and later on violent its drop, but on the contrary compomer material long an continuous increase. The velocity pattern of fluoride ion releasing was for both materials different. Primary high velocities releasing of fluoride ions quickly decreased but after 19th hour the velocity essentially got slower. In the case of glass ionomer cement the releasing velocity dropped to zero and after increased in opposite direction, in the case of compomer material the velocity was constant at the very low level. The solutions pH value in with both tested filling materials were stored, increased at the end investigations. Conclusions\: 1. The tested materials showed preventive, anticariogenic activities, what confirms their clinical usefulness. 2. Compomer material released more fluorides with comparison to glass ionomer i.e. these material probably is larger fluor source and provide releasing ions during longer time period. 3. Step by step increasing fluoride releasing from compomers caused probably by matrix hydrophility of these materials suggests that compomers are able better secure teeth against caries occurrence. 4. Glass ionomer material showed fluoride capture ability in solutions what might suggest that glass ionomer can serve also fluor reservoir in mouth. 5. The increase of solution pH value might testify about the influence of the examined materials on ionic bonds \[H\+\] and establish additional mechanism of caries protection."]

Number of results: 0