title: Staining potential of acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) foam on dental restorations in vitro.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To identify the staining potential of acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) foam on restorations in vitro.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two hundred ovine molars were used. Except 40 teeth remained unrestored as the controls, each was randomly selected to receive one of four restorative materials including preparation without restoration, glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), or composite resin (CR). Following the procedure, topical APF was applied with a predetermined frequency. Staining formation was then evaluated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  APF-treated teeth and restorations appeared with a darker shade, an orange-colored surface and/or a brown margin. The staining rates on GIC, RMGIC, and CR were 50%, 27.5%, and 17.5%, respectively. GIC had a higher staining potential than RMGIC (χ(2) = 4.266, df = 1, P = 0.039) and CR (χ(2) = 9.448, df = 1, P = 0.002), whereas the difference between RMGIC and CR was indiscernible (χ(2) = 1.147, df = 1, P = 0.284). Repeated applications of topical APF increased the risk of staining on RMGIC (χ(2) = 8.436 df = 1, P = 0.004) and CR (χ(2) = 6.873, df = 1, P = 0.009) but not on GIC (χ(2) = 0, df = 1, P = 1) and the controls (χ(2) = 4.051, df = 3, P = 0.256).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  APF-foam-related staining was confirmed in vitro. GIC was more susceptible to fluoride staining. This study suggested aesthetic implications when applying fluorides to restored teeth.
authors: Private Practitioner, ABC Dental Group, Sydney, Australia.
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Lin
authors: School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville City, Cairns, Australia.
authors: Boyen
authors: B
authors: Huang
keywords: Acidulated phosphate fluoride; composite resin; glass ionomer cement; staining
references: J Dent Child (Chic). 2003 Jan-Apr;70(1):19-23
references: 12762603
references: Arch Oral Biol. 1971 Oct;16(10):1155-63
references: 4944060
references: J Prosthet Dent. 1981 Jan;45(1):59-62
references: 6936560
references: J Public Health Dent. 1968 Summer;28(3):182-5
references: 4386807
references: ASDC J Dent Child. 1992 Jul-Aug;59(4):289-95
references: 1430501
references: Pediatr Dent. 1996 Jan-Feb;18(1):24-8
references: 8668565
references: Pediatr Dent. 1995 Sep-Oct;17(5):356-61
references: 8524685
references: Am J Dent. 1990 Jun;3(3):89-93
references: 2076235
references: J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2001 Winter;25(2):143-6
references: 11314214
references: J Am Dent Assoc. 1969 Mar;78(3):568-72
references: 4387801
references: J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014 Feb;30:176-85
references: 24316873
references: J Dent Res. 1983 Jul;62(7):846-9
references: 6575028
references: ASDC J Dent Child. 2000 Sep-Oct;67(5):330-7, 302
references: 11068665
references: J Dent Res. 2005 Mar;84(3):265-8
references: 15723868
references: J Dent Res. 1972 Jan-Feb;51(1):177-82
references: 4500420
references: J Prosthet Dent. 1986 Aug;56(2):161-9
references: 3020237
references: Int Dent J. 1981 Jun;31(2):105-20
references: 7019097
references: Oper Dent. 2002 Nov-Dec;27(6):576-81
references: 12413222
references: J Prosthet Dent. 1986 Jun;55(6):677-82
references: 3459872
references: Oral Health Dent Manag. 2014 Jun;13(2):1-4
references: 24984633
references: J Prosthet Dent. 1997 Apr;77(4):405-13
references: 9104718