OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the kinetics of water uptake and percent conversion in neat versus ethanol-solvated resins that were formulated to be used as dental bonding agents. METHODS: Five methacrylate-based resins of known and increasing hydrophilicities (R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5) were used as reference materials. Resins were evaluated as neat bonding agents (100% resin) or they were solvated with absolute ethanol (95% resin/5% ethanol or 85% resin/15% ethanol). Specimens were prepared by dispensing the uncured resin into a circular mold (5.8 mm x 0.8 mm). Photo-activation was performed for 80s. The water sorption/diffusion/solubility was gravimetrically evaluated, while the degree of conversion (DC) was calculated by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. RESULTS: Water sorption increased with the hydrophilicity of the resin blends. In general, the solvated resins exhibited significantly higher water sorption, solubility and water diffusion coefficients when compared to their corresponding neat versions (p<0.05). The only exception was resin R1, the least hydrophilic resin, in which neat and solvated versions exhibited similar water sorption (p>0.05). Addition of ethanol increased the DC of all resins tested, especially of the least hydrophilic, R1 and R2 (p<0.05). Despite the increased DC of ethanol-solvated methacrylate-based resins, it occurs at the expense of an increase in their water sorption/diffusion and solubility values. SIGNIFICANCE: Negative effects of residual ethanol on water sorption/solubility appeared to be greater as the hydrophilicity of the resin blends increased. That is, the use of less hydrophilic resins in dental adhesives may create more reliable and durable bonds to dentin.
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the kinetics of water uptake and percent conversion in neat versus ethanol-solvated resins that were formulated to be used as dental bonding agents. METHODS: Five methacrylate-based resins of known and increasing hydrophilicities (R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5) were used as reference materials. Resins were evaluated as neat bonding agents (100% resin) or they were solvated with absolute ethanol (95% resin/5% ethanol or 85% resin/15% ethanol). Specimens were prepared by dispensing the uncured resin into a circular mold (5.8 mm x 0.8 mm). Photo-activation was performed for 80s. The water sorption/diffusion/solubility was gravimetrically evaluated, while the degree of conversion (DC) was calculated by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. RESULTS:Water sorption increased with the hydrophilicity of the resin blends. In general, the solvated resins exhibited significantly higher water sorption, solubility and water diffusion coefficients when compared to their corresponding neat versions (p<0.05). The only exception was resin R1, the least hydrophilic resin, in which neat and solvated versions exhibited similar water sorption (p>0.05). Addition of ethanol increased the DC of all resins tested, especially of the least hydrophilic, R1 and R2 (p<0.05). Despite the increased DC of ethanol-solvated methacrylate-based resins, it occurs at the expense of an increase in their water sorption/diffusion and solubility values. SIGNIFICANCE: Negative effects of residual ethanol on water sorption/solubility appeared to be greater as the hydrophilicity of the resin blends increased. That is, the use of less hydrophilic resins in dental adhesives may create more reliable and durable bonds to dentin.
Authors: R M Carvalho; J S Mendonça; S L Santiago; R R Silveira; F C P Garcia; F R Tay; D H Pashley Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Milena Cadenaro; Lorenzo Breschi; Frederick A Rueggeberg; Michael Suchko; Evan Grodin; Kelli Agee; Roberto Di Lenarda; Franklin R Tay; David H Pashley Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2008-12-25 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: Zihou Zhang; Dylan Beitzel; Hessam Majd; Mustafa Mutluay; Arzu Tezvergil-Mutluay; Franklin R Tay; David H Pashley; Dwayne Arola Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 5.304
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: Shi-qiang Gong; Li-Na Niu; Lisa K Kemp; Cynthia K Y Yiu; Heonjune Ryou; Yi-Pin Qi; John D Blizzard; Sergey Nikonov; Martha G Brackett; Regina L W Messer; Christine D Wu; Jing Mao; L Bryan Brister; Frederick A Rueggeberg; Dwayne D Arola; David H Pashley; Franklin R Tay Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 8.947
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: Juliana Malacarne-Zanon; Safira M de Andrade E Silva; Linda Wang; Mario F de Goes; Adriano Luis Martins; Eliene O Narvaes-Romani; Andrea Anido-Anido; Marcela R O Carrilho Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2010-10
Authors: A A Leme-Kraus; R S Phansalkar; M C Dos Reis; B Aydin; A B S Sousa; Y Alania; J McAlpine; S N Chen; G F Pauli; A K Bedran-Russo Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 6.116