Open Access

Effect of elastomeric monomers as polymeric matrix of experimental adhesive systems: degree of conversion and bond strength characterization

  • Eliseu Aldrighi Münchow1Email author,
  • Guilherme Duarte de Barros2,
  • Lucas da Silva Alves2,
  • Lisia Lorea Valente1,
  • Sergio da Silva Cava2,
  • Evandro Piva1 and
  • Fabrício Aulo Ogliari2
Applied Adhesion Science20142:3

https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-4351-2-3

Received: 2 September 2013

Accepted: 5 November 2013

Published: 3 February 2014

Abstract

The aim of this study was to characterize the degree of conversion and the bond strength of experimental adhesive systems formulated with elastomeric monomers (Exothanes). Two-step self-etch adhesive systems were formulated, where the primer was constituted by HEMA, HEMA-P, water and ethanol, and the resin bonds were prepared mixing one type of Exothane (8, 9, 10, 24, or 32) (75 wt%) with TEGDMA (25 wt%). CQ, EDAB, and DPI were added as photo-initiation system. UDMA was used as control, so six different resin bonds were formulated at all. The adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond (CLSE) was used as a commercial control. The degree of conversion (DC) of each resin bond was evaluated in infrared spectroscopy (RT-FTIR, Shimadzu Prestige-21) using a diamond crystal (n = 3). The microshear bond strength (μSBS) test was performed using a universal testing machine (EMIC DL-500). While the DC data was analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey (p < 0.05), the μSBS data was analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Student-Newman-Keuls (p < 0.05). The resin bonds containing the Exothanes 8, 9, and 32 demonstrated DC values higher than 80%, differently to the other Exothane-based adhesives, which showed DC values close to 50%. UDMA and CLSE demonstrated lower DC than E8, E9, and E32 (p < 0.001). The Exothane 24 resulted in the lowest DC value of the study (p < 0.001), although it was similar to the E10 and UDMA adhesives (p > 0.05). Low μSBS results were seen for the Exothane-based materials. CLSE demonstrated significantly higher bond strength than the other materials (p < 0.001). UDMA has also presented low μSBS to the dentin substrate. It can be concluded that the Exothanes evaluated demonstrated satisfactory degree of conversion, with some of them reaching almost full conversion of monomers in polymer. However, considering the formulations investigated, they were not good bonding agents. So, they were not reliable options for composing the polymeric matrix of dental adhesive materials.

Keywords

Dental adhesivesExothanesElastomeric monomersElastomersMicroshear bond strengthDegree of conversionPolymerization reaction

Background

Dental adhesive systems are commonly used for bonding the restorative material to the tooth structure. The bonding mechanism is basically characterized by the substitution of superficial tooth minerals for resin monomers, which polymerize in situ, creating a micro-mechanical interlocking between the tooth and the bonding substance. This process is known as hybridization, where a hybrid layer is formed between the tooth substrates and the restorative material [1]. The bonding mechanism starts with the application of an acidic substance, which enables the superficial tooth demineralization; then, another substance is used to prepare the demineralized substrate (primer), followed by the application of a resinous substance (resin bond), which links the tooth to the restorative material. Depending on the mode of using or combining these adhesive substances (acid, primer, and resin bond), different adhesive systems are present in the dentistry field.

The adhesive systems are polymer-based materials, and they are commonly constituted by methacrylate monomers, solvents, and a photo-initiation system, which makes them photo-curable [2]. The monomeric nature plays important roles for each bonding step, where the primer should be a polar substance (hydrophilic) as the tooth is a humid substrate, and the resin bond should be a more non-polar substance (hydrophobic) than the former as this characteristic increases its mechanical strength and reduces the polymer network degradation (hydrolysis). This dual characteristic (polarity and nonpolarity) are very important for acquiring high adhesion between the tooth and the restorative material. Even so, there are several in vitro studies which evaluated the bond strength stability between tooth substrates (enamel or dentin) and restorative materials and most of them have concluded that the adhesive interface degrades over time [25], mainly because of the monomers used in their composition. This fact may influence negatively with the performance of the restorative procedure. Consequently, materials showing higher strength and stability to wet environment are still needed in dentistry.

Recently, new types of monomers were brought up to the chemistry industry. The Exothane™ Elastomers are categorized as the most recent advance in Esstech’s urethane chemistry [6], which could be used for a broad range of demanding formulations, including the adhesive ones. They present different physical characteristics when compared to the urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), which is a common monomer found in dental materials composition [7, 8], such as higher elongation and toughness properties. Moreover, these monomers have the potential of acquiring high conversion values, which is extremely desirable in adhesive materials, improving physical properties and maybe leading to low leachable activity as lower amount of residual monomers would be present at the hybrid layer, and as a consequence lower cytotoxicity [9]. In addition, considering that the Exothanes present elastomeric characteristics, they may imply mobility and capability to relax the polymer network, which is important for relieving the shrinkage stress phenomenon [10]. Nevertheless, there are several types of Exothanes and no existing studies investigating them.

Thus, the aim of the present study is to characterize the degree of conversion and the bond strength of experimental adhesive systems formulated with elastomeric monomers (Exothanes). The null hypothesis evaluated was that the experimental materials would not differ to the performance of a broadly used commercial adhesive system.

Methods

Formulation of the experimental adhesive systems

Two-step self-etch adhesive systems were prepared in the present study. The experimental self-etching primer was formulated by mixing the components described in Table 1, which was the unique primer used in the study. Methacryloyloxyethyl dihydrogen phosphate plus bis(methacryloyloxyethyl) hydrogen phosphate (HEMA-P) was synthesized as previously described [11]. It was mixed with distilled water, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) and ethanol. On the other hand, the resin bonds were formulated using the Exothane monomers, which were Exothane 8 (E8), Exothane 9 (E9), Exothane 10 (E10), Exothane 24 (E24), and Exothane 32 (E32). They were all purchased from Esstech (Esstech Inc, Essington, PA, USA) and used without further processing. UDMA was used as control (Table 1). Also, the two-step self-etch adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan) was used as the commercial control. For the experimental resin bonds formulation, each resin matrix was constituted by one type of the Exothanes (75 wt%) and 25 wt% of triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA); 0.5 wt% of camphorquinone (CQ), 1 wt% of ethyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoate (EDAB), and 1 wt% of diphenyliodonium hexafluorphosphate (DPIHFP) were added as photo-initiators (Table 1). All the primers and the resin bonds were ultrasonicated for 15 minutes.
Table 1

Experimental materials formulated in the study: a universal self-etch primer and different resin bonds

SELF-ETCH PRIMER

Components percentage (wt%)

 

HEMA-P

Distilled water

Ethanol

HEMA

Puniversal

30

20

20

30

RESIN BONDS

Components percentage (wt%)

 

Variation monomer (75wt%)

TEGDMA

CQ + EDAB + DPI

E 8

Exothane 8

25

0.5/1/1

E 9

Exothane 9

25

0.5/1/1

E 10

Exothane 10

25

0.5/1/1

E 24

Exothane 24

25

0.5/1/1

E 32

Exothane 32

25

0.5/1/1

UDMA

UDMA

25

0.5/1/1

HEMA-P, Methacryloyloxyethyl dihydrogen phosphate plus bis(methacryloyloxyethyl) hydrogen phosphate; HEMA, hydroxyethyl methacrylate; TEGDMA, triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate; CQ, camphorquinone; EDAB, ethyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoate; DPI, diphenyliodonium hexafluorphosphate; UDMA, urethane dimethacrylate.

Degree of conversion analysis

The degree of conversion (DC) of each resin bond was evaluated in triplicate using Fourier Transform mid-infrared spectroscopy (Prestige21, Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan). A standard adhesive drop (3 μL) was dispensed over a diamond crystal (Smiths) where a preliminary reading (monomer) for the unpolymerized material was taken. Then, the composite was light-activated with a light-emitting diode unit (LED Radii, SDI, Bayswater, Australia) for 30 seconds (s) and another reading was carried out (polymer). The DC was calculated as previously described [12].

Microshear bond strength (μSBS) evaluation and Failure analysis

The μSBS test was conducted according to a previous study [13]. Twenty-eight freshly bovine incisors were obtained, cleaned, and stored in 0.5% chloramine T for seven days. Then, they were transferred to distilled water and kept frozen until their use. Each tooth was embedded in acrylic resin, followed by the grounding of its vestibular surface in wet 600-grit silicon carbide paper to expose the dentin substrate. After that, the experimental adhesive systems were actively applied: one coat of the universal self-etch primer (Puniversal) for 20 s and gently air-dried for 10 s; and one coat of the experimental resin bonds, which were applied for 10 s. Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan) was applied as the manufacturer instructions. To delimitate the bond testing area, a circular silicon matrix (array) with three orifices of 1.5 mm in diameter was positioned over the dentin surface, and the light-activation for 20 s was performed on each orifice with the same light-curing unit previously described. Then, an increment of composite resin (Filtek Z-250, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA) was inserted into the orifices and light-activated for 40 s. Then, the matrix was gently removed, resulting in specimens with three cylindrical restorations at the dentin surface, which were stored in distilled water at 37°C. After 24 hours, the specimens were positioned in a universal testing machine (DL-500, EMIC, São José dos Pinhais, Brazil), where a thin wire was looped around the composite cylinder restoration. The specimens were submitted to microshear bond strength μSBS) test at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min and the results were expressed in MPa. After the test execution, the dentin surfaces were examined with a stereomicroscope at a magnification of 40x in an attempt of determining the failure pattern, which was classified as adhesive (on the adhesive interface), cohesive in dentin, cohesive in adhesive resin, or mixed.

Statistical analysis

Data of the degree of conversion were submitted to one-way Analysis of Variance and the Tukey test at the 0.05 level of significance as a post hoc test. The microshear bond strength data were submitted to Kruskal-Wallis and Student-Newman-Keuls test as a post hoc test at the 0.05 level of significance.

Results

The degree of conversion (DC) obtained with each experimental resin bond formulated and the commercial control is shown in Figure 1. The resin bonds containing the Exothanes 8, 9, and 32 demonstrated DC values higher than 90%, showing higher DC than the control groups and the other resin bonds (E10 and E24) (p < 0.001). The resin bonds containing the Exothanes 10 and 24 presented DC values near to 50%, which were similar to the experimental control group (59%) (p = 0.769 and p = 0.257, respectively). The commercial control group showed a DC value of 63.8%, which was similar to the E10 (p = 0.247), but significantly different to the E24 (p = 0.048).
Figure 1

Degree of conversion of the resin bonds evaluated. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).

The microshear bond strength (μSBS) results are presented in Figure 2. All the experimental materials (Exothane-based and UDMA-based adhesive systems) resulted in low μSBS values. In contrast, the commercial CLSE adhesive resulted in 35.6 MPa of bond strength, which was the highest μSBS median value of the study. CLSE showed higher bond strength than UDMA and the other adhesives (p < 0.05). UDMA was as strong as the E24 adhesive system (p > 0.05), which demonstrated higher μSBS values than the other Exothane-based adhesives (p < 0.05). With regard to the failure pattern distribution, the Exothane-based and UDMA-based adhesive systems generated only adhesive failure modes, differently to the control CLSE, which demonstrated equilibrium of adhesive (45%) and cohesive/mixed (55%) failures (see in Figure 2, image and legends).
Figure 2

Microshear bond strength to dentin of the adhesive systems evaluated. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Regarding the failure pattern of the adhesive systems, all the experimental materials showed adhesive failures (*); in contrast, CLSE demonstrated only 45% of adhesive failures, and 55% of cohesive/mixed failures.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate about the reliability of using the Exothane monomers as polymeric matrix of dental adhesive materials. So, experimental adhesive systems containing these monomers were prepared. It is already known that a satisfactory performance of polymeric dental materials is directly correlated to a proper polymerization reaction of monomers in polymer [7, 12, 14]. Interestingly, within the degree of conversion results obtained from each resin bond formulated it is possible to verify that some Exothanes acquired excellent conversion values (Figure 1). In fact, adhesives containing the Exothanes 8, 9, and 32 showed almost full polymerization, and according to Ferracane (2006) [7] how greater the degree of conversion, higher the material’s stability to the hydrolysis degradation phenomena. This will probably generate a long-durable material with improved physic-mechanical properties [15]. Nevertheless, not by all the experimental Exothane-based resin bonds resulted in excellent conversion values, as the Exothanes 10 and 24 showed degree of conversion near to 50% (Figure 1).

The conversion of monomers into a polymer network is influenced by intrinsic factors, such as the monomer’s degree of functionality (number of double bond terminations per molecule) [16], chain extender length [17], viscosity [18], and reactivity [19]. According to the Esstech site, no data of molecular formula or weight are supplied for the Exothanes 8, 10, 24, and 32. Consequently, their degree of functionality, chain extender length, and reactivity are unknown by the scientific community. In contrast, the Exothane 9, which is not new in the chemistry field, has been already commercialized with another product name (PEG 400 Extended Urethane Dimethacrylate, Item # X-726-0000 from the Esstech catalog) [6]. It presents a functionality 2 and a high molecular weight (1139.4 g/mol), but a low viscosity (1.855 PaS), fact that has probably contributed to its high degree of conversion (Figure 1), as low viscosities facilitate the molecule mobility, increasing its conversion [18]. Unfortunately, the absence of knowledge about the molecular structure and weight of the other Exothanes limits the discussion and understanding of why they react so differently, leading to polymers with almost full conversion (those containing the Exothanes 8 and 32) and others with only half-conversion values (those containing the Exothanes 10 and 24) (Figure 1).

When the Exothane-based resin bonds are compared to the control materials, it can be observed that the presence of the Exothanes 8, 9, and 32 has improved the degree of conversion, differently to the other two Exothanes (10 and 24), which contributed to convert similarly to the UDMA-based resin bond. Considering this result, it can be inferred that these latter Exothanes present a similar molecular structure of UDMA, as they are also urethane-based monomers. With regard to the degree of conversion obtained with the CLSE resin bond, it is in accordance with previous studies [20, 21]. In addition, the 64% of monomeric conversion achieved with this adhesive was similar to the UDMA and E10 groups (Figure 1), but different to the E24 resin bond, which showed a statistically lower degree of conversion, probably because the Exothane 24 monomer may present low mobility ability, limiting the polymerization reaction [17].

With regard to the bond strength results, it is possible to verify that the Exothanes are not good options for the development of dental adhesive systems, at least using the formulations evaluated in this study. When only the degree of conversion results are observed, it can be expected a satisfactory adhesive capacity for all the Exothanes, as conversion values higher than 50% are enough for bonding to tooth substrates [22]. However, the bond strength results obtained in this study showed low adhesive ability for all the Exothane-based adhesive systems (Figure 2).

The adhesion process of the tooth substrates is a complex mechanism which involves the demineralization of the surface, micro-porosities formation, resin monomers infiltration, and a proper polymerization. Several factors may hamper one or more of these factors, such as the acidic substance concentration used for etching the substrate [23], the polarity of the adhesive substances applied over the demineralized tooth [24, 25], the complete or incomplete volatilization of any solvent retained in the adhesive layer [26], or the light source and intensity used for photo-activate the adhesive [12]. Considering each of these aforementioned factors, the acidic substance used for the experimental materials formulation was the HEMA-P, which has demonstrated satisfactory demineralization ability in a previous study; [11] after the primer’s application, the solvent was volatilized by air stream for 10 s, leading to the formation of a shiny layer over the substrate (a solvent-free pellicle was visually formed); lastly, the light source used was the same for all the materials evaluated. Nevertheless, the polarity of each resin blend formulated is unknown, and this fact may have probably caused the different bond strength results obtained in the study.

The polarity of a monomer is a characteristic that shows its hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity ratio [7]. Generally, the primer substance is applied over the dentin substrate, which is a humid structure that is chemically compatible with hydrophilic molecules; so, the primer should be hydrophilic, enabling the resin monomers infiltration into the demineralized dentin, leading to their entanglement with the exposed collagen fibrils [27]. Nevertheless, hydrophilic substances tend to suffer faster degradation phenomena due to the hydrolysis processes that occur in the oral environment [7, 24]. In contrast, the resin bond substance, which is applied over the primer, should be a hydrophobic material, as this characteristic implies strength and more stability for the adhesive to resist the degradation phenomena [28]. Even so, the resin bond should be only moderately hydrophobic, as a poor interaction between the primer and the resin bond may occur (phase separation). Considering that the same primer formulation was used in the current study, the Exothane-based adhesives (experimental resin bonds) have probably an extremely hydrophobic nature, as very low bond strength results were obtained (Figure 2), whit complete adhesive failure modes. This characteristic shows that a proper interaction between the primer and the experimental resin bonds have not occurred, including for the control UDMA-based resin bond. This result may suggest that the urethane derivatives investigated in this study are hydrophobic substances, even when they are mixed with TEGDMA (a more hydrophilic monomer). On the other hand, the control CLSE showed 55% of cohesive/mixed failure modes, indicating that a strong hybrid layer was created between the dentin substrate and the adhesive components. This is already understood because the CLSE is constituted by 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP), which enables a chemical and a micro-mechanical bonding mechanisms [2], improving the bond strength results, as confirmed by the present study.

Considering the results obtained in this study, the null hypothesis evaluated that the experimental adhesive systems would not differ to a broadly used commercial adhesive system can be partially accepted, as regarding the degree of conversion analysis, some of the materials (E10 and UDMA) demonstrated similar conversion when compared to the control Clearfil SE Bond. With regard to the bond strength performance, all the experimental adhesive systems presented lower bonding ability than the commercial material used. Therefore, further studies evaluating the ultimate microtensile bond strength of Exothane-based adhesives are necessary, mainly investigating different formulations. Moreover, sorption and solubility tests are interesting for clarifying the hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity of the Exothanes, although these monomers should be full-characterized about their physic-mechanical properties, as very few information are available.

Conclusion

Despite of the limitations of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that the Exothanes evaluated demonstrated satisfactory degree of conversion, with some of them reaching almost full conversion of monomers in polymer. However, considering the formulations investigated, they were not good bonding agents. So, they were not reliable options for composing the polymeric matrix of dental adhesive materials.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank Esstech Inc for reagents donation.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas
(2)
Department of Organic Chemistry, School of Materials Engineering, Federal University of Pelotas

References

  1. Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E: The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 1982, 16: 265–273. doi:10.1002/jbm.820160307 10.1002/jbm.820160307View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Van Meerbeek B: A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005, 84: 118–132. doi:84/2/118 doi:84/2/118 10.1177/154405910508400204View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Khoroushi M, Rafiei E: Effect of thermocycling and water storage on bond longevity of two self-etch adhesives. Gen Dent 2013, 61: 39–44.Google Scholar
  4. Sacramento PA, de Castilho AR, Banzi EC, Puppi-Rontani RM: Influence of cavity disinfectant and adhesive systems on the bonding procedure in demineralized dentin - a one-year in vitro evaluation. J Adhes Dent 2012, 14: 575–583. doi:28730 doi:28730Google Scholar
  5. Zanchi CH, Munchow EA, Ogliari FA, de Carvalho RV, Chersoni S, Prati C, Demarco FF, Piva E: Effects of long-term water storage on the microtensile bond strength of five experimental self-etching adhesives based on surfactants rather than HEMA. Clin Oral Investig 2013, 17: 833–839. doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0791-4 10.1007/s00784-012-0791-4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Esstech Inc Access 24 August 2013 http://catalog.esstechinc.com/viewitems/all-categories/esstech-specialty-chemicals-exothane? Access 24 August 2013
  7. Ferracane JL: Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 2006, 22: 211–222. doi:S0109–5641(05)00158–2 10.1016/j.dental.2005.05.005View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, Coutinho E, Suzuki K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B: Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 2007, 28: 3757–3785. doi:S0142–9612(07)00359–6 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Henn S, Nedel F, de Carvalho RV, Lund RG, Cenci MS, Pereira-Cenci T, Demarco FF, Piva E: Characterization of an antimicrobial dental resin adhesive containing zinc methacrylate. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2011, 22: 1797–1802. doi:10.1007/s10856–011–4364-x 10.1007/s10856-011-4364-xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Ye S, Azarnoush S, Smith IR, Cramer NB, Stansbury JW, Bowman CN: Using hyperbranched oligomer functionalized glass fillers to reduce shrinkage stress. Dent Mater 2012, 28: 1004–1011. doi:S0109–5641(12)00164–9 10.1016/j.dental.2012.05.003View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Lima Gda S, Ogliari FA, da Silva EO, Ely C, Demarco FF, Carreno NL, Petzhold CL, Piva E: Influence of water concentration in an experimental self-etching primer on the bond strength to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2008, 10: 167–172.Google Scholar
  12. Moraes RR, Faria-e-Silva AL, Ogliari FA, Correr-Sobrinho L, Demarco FF, Piva E: Impact of immediate and delayed light activation on self-polymerization of dual-cured dental resin luting agents. Acta Biomater 2009, 5: 2095–2100. doi:S1742–7061(09)00040–3 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.01.030View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Münchow EA, Bossardi M, Priebe TC, Valente LL, Zanchi CH, Ogliari FA, Piva E: Microtensile versus microshear bond strength between dental adhesives and the dentin substrate. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes 2013, 46: 95–99. doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2013.06.005View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Sulca NM, Munteanu AV, Popescu RG, Lungu A, Stan R, Iovu H: Dibenzylidene sorbitol derivatives for improving dental materials properties. UPB Sci Bull 2010, 72: 25–36.Google Scholar
  15. Obici AC, Sinhoreti MAC, Frollini E, Sobrinho LC, Consani S: Degree of conversion and knoop hardness of Z250 composite using different photo-activation methods. Polymer Testing 2005, 24: 814–818. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2005.07.011View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Andrzejewska E: Photopolymerization kinetics of multifunctional monomers. Prog Polym Sci 2001, 26: 605–665. 10.1016/S0079-6700(01)00004-1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Ogliari FA, Ely C, Zanchi CH, Fortes CB, Samuel SM, Demarco FF, Petzhold CL, Piva E: Influence of chain extender length of aromatic dimethacrylates on polymer network development. Dent Mater 2008, 24: 165–171. doi:S0109-5641(07)00078-4 10.1016/j.dental.2007.03.007View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Oguri M, Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Miyauchi T, Nakamura Y, Shimoda S, Hanabusa M, Momoi Y, Van Meerbeek B: Effects of functional monomers and photo-initiators on the degree of conversion of a dental adhesive. Acta Biomater 2012, 8: 1928–1934. doi:S1742-7061(12)00020-7 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.01.013View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Scranton AB, Bowman CN, Klier J, Peppas NA: Polymerization reaction dynamics of ethylene glycol methacrylates and dimethacrylates by calorimetry. Polymer 1992, 33: 1683–1689. 10.1016/0032-3861(92)91067-CView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Faria ESAL, Piva E, Moraes RR: Time-dependent effect of refrigeration on viscosity and conversion kinetics of dental adhesive resins. Eur J Dent 2010, 4: 150–155.Google Scholar
  21. Faria-e-Silva AL, Lima AF, Moraes RR, Piva E, Martins LR: Degree of conversion of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives light-cured using QTH or LED. Oper Dent 2010, 35: 649–654. doi:10.2341/10–066-L 10.2341/10-066-LView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Kanehira M, Finger WJ, Hoffmann M, Endo T, Komatsu M: Relationship between degree of polymerization and enamel bonding strength with self-etching adhesives. J Adhes Dent 2006, 8: 211–216.Google Scholar
  23. Leal FB, Madruga FC, Prochnow EP, Lima GS, Ogliari FA, Piva E, Moraes RR: Effect of acidic monomer concentration on the dentin bond stability of self-etch adhesives. Int J Adhes Adhes 2011, 31: 571–574. doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2011.05.007 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2011.05.007View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Takahashi M, Nakajima M, Hosaka K, Ikeda M, Foxton RM, Tagami J: Long-term evaluation of water sorption and ultimate tensile strength of HEMA-containing/-free one-step self-etch adhesives. J Dent 2011, 39: 506–512. doi:S0300–5712(11)00120–5 doi:S0300-5712(11)00120-5 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.04.008View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang Y, Spencer P: Quantifying adhesive penetration in adhesive/dentin interface using confocal Raman microspectroscopy. J Biomed Mater Res 2002, 59: 46–55. doi:10.1002/jbm.1215 10.1002/jbm.1215View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Manso AP, Marquezini L Jr, Silva SM, Pashley DH, Tay FR, Carvalho RM: Stability of wet versus dry bonding with different solvent-based adhesives. Dent Mater 2008, 24: 476–482. doi:S0109–5641(07)00143–1 doi:S0109-5641(07)00143-1 10.1016/j.dental.2007.04.009View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Kanca J 3rd: Improving bond strength through acid etching of dentin and bonding to wet dentin surfaces. J Am Dent Assoc 1992, 123: 35–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Guo X, Spencer P, Wang Y, Ye Q, Yao X, Williams K: Effects of a solubility enhancer on penetration of hydrophobic component in model adhesives into wet demineralized dentin. Dent Mater 2007, 23: 1473–1481. doi:S0109–5641(07)00011–5 10.1016/j.dental.2006.12.003View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Münchow et al.; licensee Springer. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.