OBJECTIVES: This study examined the extent of ethanol retention in five comonomer blends of experimental methacrylate-based dental adhesives, containing (10, 20, or 30 wt.%) ethanol, after solvent evaporation, as well as observing the effect of residual ethanol and exposure duration on degree of conversion (DC). The null hypothesis that was tested was that residual, unevaporated ethanol has no effect on the rate or extent of DC of polymerized adhesive resins. METHODS: A known mass of each mixture was placed in glass wells and evaporated for 60s. The mass of the mixtures before and after evaporation was measured, allowing calculation of the gravimetric ethanol loss/retention. RESULTS: The concentration of retained ethanol increased significantly with ethanol concentration (p<0.01): 1.1-1.9 mole/L for 10% ethanol/90% comonomers, 2.2-3.5 mole/L for 20% ethanol, and 2.6-3.7 mole/L for 30% ethanol/70% comonomers. As ethanol is evaporated from solvated comonomer mixtures, the molar concentration of comonomers increases, reducing the vapor pressure of the remaining ethanol. Thus, the fractional loss of ethanol solvent decreases as the comonomer concentration increases. The DC of 10, 20, and 30 wt.% ethanol blends increased with ethanol concentration in four of the five experimental resins (p<0.05), increasing by 30-45% when 10 or 20 wt.% ethanol was added to neat resins, regardless of exposure duration. Depending on the resin system, inclusion of 30% ethanol lowered DC at 20s but increased DC after 40-60s of light exposure. SIGNIFICANCE: Since 10 and 20 wt.% ethanol-resin blends increased the DC of solvated resins by 30-45% over neat resins, the test null hypothesis is rejected. Even with prolonged evaporation, 4-9% residual ethanol concentration can remain in 90/10 (wt./wt.) comonomer-ethanol mixtures. This is thought to be because comonomers lower the vapor pressure of ethanol. This amount of residual ethanol facilitates DC but lowers the rate of polymerization.
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the extent of ethanol retention in five comonomer blends of experimental methacrylate-based dental adhesives, containing (10, 20, or 30 wt.%) ethanol, after solvent evaporation, as well as observing the effect of residual ethanol and exposure duration on degree of conversion (DC). The null hypothesis that was tested was that residual, unevaporated ethanol has no effect on the rate or extent of DC of polymerized adhesive resins. METHODS: A known mass of each mixture was placed in glass wells and evaporated for 60s. The mass of the mixtures before and after evaporation was measured, allowing calculation of the gravimetric ethanol loss/retention. RESULTS: The concentration of retained ethanol increased significantly with ethanol concentration (p<0.01): 1.1-1.9 mole/L for 10% ethanol/90% comonomers, 2.2-3.5 mole/L for 20% ethanol, and 2.6-3.7 mole/L for 30% ethanol/70% comonomers. As ethanol is evaporated from solvated comonomer mixtures, the molar concentration of comonomers increases, reducing the vapor pressure of the remaining ethanol. Thus, the fractional loss of ethanol solvent decreases as the comonomer concentration increases. The DC of 10, 20, and 30 wt.% ethanol blends increased with ethanol concentration in four of the five experimental resins (p<0.05), increasing by 30-45% when 10 or 20 wt.% ethanol was added to neat resins, regardless of exposure duration. Depending on the resin system, inclusion of 30% ethanol lowered DC at 20s but increased DC after 40-60s of light exposure. SIGNIFICANCE: Since 10 and 20 wt.% ethanol-resin blends increased the DC of solvated resins by 30-45% over neat resins, the test null hypothesis is rejected. Even with prolonged evaporation, 4-9% residual ethanol concentration can remain in 90/10 (wt./wt.) comonomer-ethanol mixtures. This is thought to be because comonomers lower the vapor pressure of ethanol. This amount of residual ethanol facilitates DC but lowers the rate of polymerization.
Authors: Masanori Hashimoto; Franklin R Tay; Shuichi Ito; Hidehiko Sano; Masayuki Kaga; David H Pashley Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.368
Authors: Cynthia K Y Yiu; Edna L Pashley; Noriko Hiraishi; Nigel M King; Cecilia Goracci; Marco Ferrari; Ricardo M Carvalho; David H Pashley; Franklin R Tay Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Shuichi Ito; Masanori Hashimoto; Bakul Wadgaonkar; Nadia Svizero; Ricardo M Carvalho; Cynthia Yiu; Frederick A Rueggeberg; Stephen Foulger; Takashi Saito; Yoshihiro Nishitani; Masahiro Yoshiyama; Franklin R Tay; David H Pashley Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: R R Morães; J W Garcia; N D Wilson; S H Lewis; M D Barros; B Yang; C S Pfeifer; J W Stansbury Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Jianfeng Zhou; Ayaka Chiba; Debora L S Scheffel; Josimeri Hebling; Kelli Agee; Junji Tagami; Jianquo Tan; Dalia Abuelenain; Manar Abu Nawareg; Ali H Hassan; Lorenzo Breschi; Franklin R Tay; David H Pashley Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2016-07-16 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: M Bail; J Malacarne-Zanon; S M A Silva; A Anauate-Netto; F D Nascimento; R Amore; H Lewgoy; D H Pashley; M R Carrilho Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2011-12-31 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: David H Pashley; Franklin R Tay; Lorenzo Breschi; Leo Tjäderhane; Ricardo M Carvalho; Marcela Carrilho; Arzu Tezvergil-Mutluay Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2010-11-27 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Adriana Pigozzo Manso; Rosa Helena Miranda Grande; Ana Karina Bedran-Russo; Alessandra Reis; Alessandro D Loguercio; David Henry Pashley; Ricardo Marins Carvalho Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Milena Cadenaro; Francesca Antoniolli; Barbara Codan; Kelli Agee; Franklin R Tay; Elettra De Stefano Dorigo; David H Pashley; Lorenzo Breschi Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Leo Tjäderhane; Fabio D Nascimento; Lorenzo Breschi; Annalisa Mazzoni; Ivarne L S Tersariol; Saulo Geraldeli; Arzu Tezvergil-Mutluay; Marcela R Carrilho; Ricardo M Carvalho; Franklin R Tay; David H Pashley Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Milena Cadenaro; Lorenzo Breschi; Frederick A Rueggeberg; Kelli Agee; Roberto Di Lenarda; Marcela Carrilho; Franklin R Tay; David H Pashley Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 5.304