Home | About Us | Editorial Board | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions | Subscription | Feedback | e-Alerts | Login 
Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry Official publication of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
 Users Online: 855  
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 31  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 229-233

Surface coatings on glass ionomer restorations in Pediatric dentistry-Worthy or not?

1 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Narayana Dental College, Nellore, India
2 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Government Dental College and Hospital, Afzulgunj, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Rekhalakshmi Kamatham
Assistant Professor, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Narayana Dental College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.121818

Rights and Permissions

Background: To know the effect of surface protective agents used in day-to-day practice on the fluoride release property of conventional glass ionomer cements (GIC) and discuss its pros and cons. Materials and Methods: Thirty disc-shaped specimens were fabricated from conventional GIC and block randomized into three groups (Group I, II, and III) of 10 each. Group I specimens were unprotected, group II coated with cavity varnish (Namuvar, Ratnagiri, India) and group III with petroleum jelly (Vaseline, Hindustan lever ltd). After polymerization, the disks were immersed in three individual sealable plastic bottles containing deionized distilled water which was changed every 24 hours for 15 days to measure the fluoride release. Statistics and Results: Statistical analysis was carried using software version Systat 10.0, and the data was subjected to one way ANOVA, using Duncan Multiple Range test (Variable LSD) with the level of significance set at 0.05 (P < 0.05). The greatest amount of fluoride was released from the uncoated group, followed in ranking by petroleum jelly and varnish coated and the difference among them was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Application of varnish over GIC can severely impede its fluoride release property. Similarly petroleum jelly also impedes the fluoride release, but to a very less extent. We suggest that in situations where the fluoride release property is more important than other properties it is better to coat the GIC with petroleum jelly or leave the restoration without any coating.


Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded675    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Contact us | Sitemap | Advertise | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer 
  2005 - Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 
Online since 1st May '05