Valeria B Gotti1, Américo B Correr2, Steven H Lewis3, Victor P Feitosa4, Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho5, Jeffrey W Stansbury6. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Division of Dental Materials, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, 901 Limeira Ave., 13414-903 Piracicaba, Brazil. Electronic address: val_bisinoto@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Division of Dental Materials, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, 901 Limeira Ave., 13414-903 Piracicaba, Brazil. Electronic address: amerbc@yahoo.com.br. 3. Department of Craniofacial Biology, University of Colorado-School of Dental Medicine, 12800 E 19th Ave./RC1-North-Rm. 2104, Mail Stop 8310, Aurora, United States. Electronic address: steven.lewis@ucdenver.edu. 4. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Ceará, Monsenhor Furtado St., 60430350 Fortaleza, Brazil. Electronic address: victorpfeitosa@hotmail.com. 5. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Division of Dental Materials, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, 901 Limeira Ave., 13414-903 Piracicaba, Brazil. Electronic address: sobrinho@fop.unicamp.br. 6. Department of Craniofacial Biology, University of Colorado-School of Dental Medicine, 12800 E 19th Ave./RC1-North-Rm. 2104, Mail Stop 8310, Aurora, United States. Electronic address: jeffrey.stansbury@ucdenver.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of hydrophilicity of reactive nanogels on the mechanical performance of dental adhesives and microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentin after 24h or 3 months of aging. METHODS: A series of three nanogels were synthesized: NG1-IBMA/UDMA; NG2-HEMA/BisGMA; NG3-HEMA/TE-EGDMA. The nanogels were dispersed in solvent, HEMA or BisGMA/HEMA. The degree of conversion (DC) of the materials was measured and the flexural modulus of these polymers was evaluated in dry or wet conditions. For μTBS analysis, a model adhesive was used without nanogel (control) or with the incorporation of nanogels. μTBS was evaluated after storage in distilled water for 24h or 3 months. The analysis of the fracture was performed after μTBS testing. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). RESULTS: Water significantly increased the modulus of NG1 and NG2 dispersed in solvent, while significantly decreased the stiffness of NG3. All polymers dispersed in HEMA and BisGMA/HEMA had significantly lower modulus when stored in water. NG2 showed the highest DC in solvent and BisGMA/HEMA. In HEMA, NG1 and NG3 produced the highest DC. After three months, NG2 showed the best μTBS. The μTBS of NG2-containing adhesive resin significantly increased after 3 months, while storage had no effect in the control group, NG1 and NG3. SIGNIFICANCE: The more hydrophobic IBMA/UDMA nanogel showed higher bulk material mechanical property results, but the best dentin bond strength values, and notably strength values that improved upon storage, were obtained with the amphiphilic nanogel based on BisGMA/HEMA.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of hydrophilicity of reactive nanogels on the mechanical performance of dental adhesives and microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentin after 24h or 3 months of aging. METHODS: A series of three nanogels were synthesized: NG1-IBMA/UDMA; NG2-HEMA/BisGMA; NG3-HEMA/TE-EGDMA. The nanogels were dispersed in solvent, HEMA or BisGMA/HEMA. The degree of conversion (DC) of the materials was measured and the flexural modulus of these polymers was evaluated in dry or wet conditions. For μTBS analysis, a model adhesive was used without nanogel (control) or with the incorporation of nanogels. μTBS was evaluated after storage in distilled water for 24h or 3 months. The analysis of the fracture was performed after μTBS testing. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). RESULTS:Water significantly increased the modulus of NG1 and NG2 dispersed in solvent, while significantly decreased the stiffness of NG3. All polymers dispersed in HEMA and BisGMA/HEMA had significantly lower modulus when stored in water. NG2 showed the highest DC in solvent and BisGMA/HEMA. In HEMA, NG1 and NG3 produced the highest DC. After three months, NG2 showed the best μTBS. The μTBS of NG2-containing adhesive resin significantly increased after 3 months, while storage had no effect in the control group, NG1 and NG3. SIGNIFICANCE: The more hydrophobic IBMA/UDMA nanogel showed higher bulk material mechanical property results, but the best dentin bond strength values, and notably strength values that improved upon storage, were obtained with the amphiphilic nanogel based on BisGMA/HEMA.
Authors: Kirsten L Van Landuyt; Johan Snauwaert; Jan De Munck; Marleen Peumans; Yasuhiro Yoshida; André Poitevin; Eduardo Coutinho; Kazuomi Suzuki; Paul Lambrechts; Bart Van Meerbeek Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2007-05-07 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Ana Karina B Bedran-Russo; David H Pashley; Kelli Agee; James L Drummond; Klaus J Miescke Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.368
Authors: Leo Tjäderhane; Fabio D Nascimento; Lorenzo Breschi; Annalisa Mazzoni; Ivarne L S Tersariol; Saulo Geraldeli; Arzu Tezvergil-Mutluay; Marcela Carrilho; Ricardo M Carvalho; Franklin R Tay; David H Pashley Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: M R O Carrilho; R M Carvalho; M F de Goes; V di Hipólito; S Geraldeli; F R Tay; D H Pashley; L Tjäderhane Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: N Hiraishi; N Nishiyama; K Ikemura; J Y Y Yau; N M King; J Tagami; D H Pashley; F R Tay Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Rafael R Moraes; Jeffrey W Garcia; Matthew D Barros; Steven H Lewis; Carmem S Pfeifer; JianCheng Liu; Jeffrey W Stansbury Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 5.304