| Literature DB >> 36080272 |
Mohammadamin Ezazi1,2, Qiang Ye1, Anil Misra1,3, Candan Tamerler1,4,5, Paulette Spencer1,4,5.
Abstract
The low-viscosity adhesive that is used to bond composite restorative materials to the tooth is readily damaged by acids, enzymes, and oral fluids. Bacteria infiltrate the resulting gaps at the composite/tooth interface, demineralize the tooth, and further erode the adhesive. This paper presents the preparation and characterization of a low-crosslink-density hydrophilic adhesive that capitalizes on sol-gel reactions and free-radical polymerization to resist hydrolysis and provide enhanced mechanical properties in wet environments. Polymerization behavior, water sorption, and leachates were investigated. Dynamic mechanical analyses (DMA) were conducted using water-saturated adhesives to mimic load transfer in wet conditions. Data from all tests were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests (α = 0.05). The degree of conversion was comparable for experimental and control adhesives at 88.3 and 84.3%, respectively. HEMA leachate was significantly lower for the experimental (2.9 wt%) compared to control (7.2 wt%). After 3 days of aqueous aging, the storage and rubbery moduli and the glass transition temperature of the experimental adhesive (57.5MPa, 12.8MPa, and 38.7 °C, respectively) were significantly higher than control (7.4MPa, 4.3 MPa, and 25.9 °C, respectively). The results indicated that the autonomic sol-gel reaction continues in the wet environment, leading to intrinsic reinforcement of the polymer network, improved hydrolytic stability, and enhanced mechanical properties.Entities:
Keywords: dental adhesive; dynamic mechanical analyses; hydrolytic degradation; self-strengthening; sol-gel reaction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36080272 PMCID: PMC9457668 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27175505
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Real-time in situ degree of conversion of C=C bond.
Figure 2The plots of water sorption (%) as a function of storage time in water for control (C1) and experimental (E1) formulations.
Values of degree of conversion (DC), maximum polymerization rate (R/[M]), water miscibility, and water sorption for control and experimental formulations.
| Sample | DC (%) | DC (%) after | Water | Water | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 76.1 A (2.8) | 84.3 A (5.8) | 1.1 A (0.2) | 25.8 A (0.4) | 24.2 A (1.0) |
| Experimental | 80.4 A (4.1) | 88.3 A (1.4) | 1.5 A (0.3) | 24.6 B (0.2) | 18.6 B (1.6) |
The values in parentheses indicate the standard deviation. The same letter after the mean values indicates no statistically significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Representative plots of (a,b) storage modulus, (c,d) derivative storage modulus, and (e,f) tan δ as a function of temperature for water-saturated C1 and E1 copolymers in wet condition.
Dynamic mechanical analysis results of water-saturated copolymer samples in wet condition.
| Sample | Storage Modulus at | Rubbery | Tg (°C) | Tan δ | ζ (×10−5
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1-2 days | 3.9 A (0.3) | 2.7 A (0.1) | 18.9 A (0.4) | 1.02 A (0.01) | 12.0 A (0.8) |
| C1-3 days | 7.4 B (0.4) | 4.3 B (0.1) | 25.9 B (0.9) | 0.93 B (0.01) | 7.8 B (0.2) |
| C1-4 days | 8.0 B (0.3) | 4.5 B (0.3) | 26.7 B (0.6) | 0.94 B (0.01) | 7.5 B (0.3) |
| E1-2 days | 26.3 a (1.0) | 9.0 a (0.2) | 33.6 a (0.6) | 0.72 a (0.01) | 3.7 a (0.1) |
| E1-3 days | 57.5 b (9.9) | 12.8 b (1.0) | 38.7 b (0.8) | 0.65 b (0.01) | 2.6 b (0.2) |
| E1-4 days | 69.7 b (2.8) | 13.3 b (0.4) | 40.2 c (0.1) | 0.63 b (0.00) | 2.5 b (0.1) |
The same letter after the mean values indicates no statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) within C1 (upper case letters) or E1 (lower case letters).
Figure 4Relative crosslink density of water-saturated copolymers in wet condition. Same letter indicates no statistically significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Cumulative concentration and weight percentage of HEMA leachate that was released from C1 and E1 samples after 4 days of aqueous aging.
Scheme 1Schematic of the proposed hydrophilic polymethacrylate-based adhesives with a relatively low crosslink density. Schematic illustrates the cascade of events resuming in the C1 and E1 copolymers that includes formation of copolymer network by free-radical polymerization and release of HEMA leachate when submerged in water. Note that the sol-gel-driven self-strengthening only resumes in water for E1 copolymer due to hydrolysis-polycondensation reaction at the trialkoxysilyl functional groups of MPS.
Scheme 2Chemical structures of monomers and photoinitiators utilized in the control and experimental formulations.
Chemical composition of the formulations.
| Components | C1 (wt%) | E1 (wt%) |
|---|---|---|
| HEMA | 73 | 73 |
| BisGMA | 15 | 15 |
| MES | 10 | - |
| MPS | - | 10 |
| CQ | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| EDMAB | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| DPIHP | 1.0 | 1.0 |