Limits...
Effects of solvent evaporation on water sorption/solubility and nanoleakage of adhesive systems.

Chimeli TB, D'Alpino PH, Pereira PN, Hilgert LA, Di Hipólito V, Garcia FC - J Appl Oral Sci (2014 Jul-Aug)

Bottom Line: Statistical analysis revealed that only the factor "adhesive" was significant (p<0.05).CSE (control) presented significantly lower net uptake (5.4%).Although the evaporation has no effect in the kinetics of water diffusion, the nanoleakage expression of the adhesives tested increases when the solvents are not evaporated.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Brasilia, Brasília, DF, Brazil.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the influence of solvent evaporation in the kinetics of water diffusion (water sorption-WS, solubility-SL, and net water uptake) and nanoleakage of adhesive systems.

Material and methods: Disk-shaped specimens (5.0 mm in diameter x 0.8 mm in thickness) were produced (N=48) using the adhesives: Clearfil S3 Bond (CS3)/Kuraray, Clearfil SE Bond - control group (CSE)/Kuraray, Optibond Solo Plus (OS)/Kerr and Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SBU)/3M ESPE. The solvents were either evaporated for 30 s or not evaporated (N=24/per group), and then photoactivated for 80 s (550 mW/cm2). After desiccation, the specimens were weighed and stored in distilled water (N=12) or mineral oil (N=12) to evaluate the water diffusion over a 7-day period. Net water uptake (%) was also calculated as the sum of WS and SL. Data were submitted to 3-way ANOVA/Tukey's test (α=5%). The nanoleakage expression in three additional specimens per group was also evaluated after ammoniacal silver impregnation after 7 days of water storage under SEM.

Results: Statistical analysis revealed that only the factor "adhesive" was significant (p<0.05). Solvent evaporation had no influence in the WS and SL of the adhesives. CSE (control) presented significantly lower net uptake (5.4%). The nanoleakage was enhanced by the presence of solvent in the adhesives.

Conclusions: Although the evaporation has no effect in the kinetics of water diffusion, the nanoleakage expression of the adhesives tested increases when the solvents are not evaporated.

Show MeSH
Changes in mass of the adhesive systems tested in the water sorption/solubilitytest. Symbols represent mean values (N=12). Standard deviation values were notindicated. OP - Optibond Solo Plus, CS3 - Clearfil S3 Bond, and SBU- Scotchbond Universal Adhesive as a function of the solvent evaporation(non-evaporated - N) or evaporated solvents - E)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4126825&req=5

f02: Changes in mass of the adhesive systems tested in the water sorption/solubilitytest. Symbols represent mean values (N=12). Standard deviation values were notindicated. OP - Optibond Solo Plus, CS3 - Clearfil S3 Bond, and SBU- Scotchbond Universal Adhesive as a function of the solvent evaporation(non-evaporated - N) or evaporated solvents - E)

Mentions: Mass variation curves for the 12 days of immersion in water are presented in Figure 2. The results are shown in Table 1. The statistical analysis revealed thatonly the factor "adhesive protocol" was significant (p=0.01). The solvent evaporationprocedure had no effect on the water sorption and solubility of the adhesives(p=0.21), irrespective of the storage media. When mass gain (i.e. water sorption) andmass loss (i.e. solubility) of adhesive disks were plotted against time, non-solvatedadhesive CSE was determined to have the lowest water sorption (Figure 2). CSE adhesive also presented significantly lower meansof SL (-2.9 μg/mm3) (p<0.05). When the WS and SL were compared as afunction of the storage media, the means were statistically lower when the specimenswere immersed in mineral oil. The net water uptake means varied from 5.4 to 24.6%among the adhesive systems (Table 1) and weredetermined to be significantly lower for the CSE Bond (5.4%). All the adhesivesstored in water presented a time-dependent increase in water sorption and solubility,whereas the adhesives stored in mineral oil presented lower sorption and solubilitymeans (Figure 2). In spite of the variation inmass as a function of the time, CSE was the only adhesive to present similar weightafter the desiccation process in comparison to that obtained at m1 (Figure 2).


Effects of solvent evaporation on water sorption/solubility and nanoleakage of adhesive systems.

Chimeli TB, D'Alpino PH, Pereira PN, Hilgert LA, Di Hipólito V, Garcia FC - J Appl Oral Sci (2014 Jul-Aug)

Changes in mass of the adhesive systems tested in the water sorption/solubilitytest. Symbols represent mean values (N=12). Standard deviation values were notindicated. OP - Optibond Solo Plus, CS3 - Clearfil S3 Bond, and SBU- Scotchbond Universal Adhesive as a function of the solvent evaporation(non-evaporated - N) or evaporated solvents - E)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4126825&req=5

f02: Changes in mass of the adhesive systems tested in the water sorption/solubilitytest. Symbols represent mean values (N=12). Standard deviation values were notindicated. OP - Optibond Solo Plus, CS3 - Clearfil S3 Bond, and SBU- Scotchbond Universal Adhesive as a function of the solvent evaporation(non-evaporated - N) or evaporated solvents - E)
Mentions: Mass variation curves for the 12 days of immersion in water are presented in Figure 2. The results are shown in Table 1. The statistical analysis revealed thatonly the factor "adhesive protocol" was significant (p=0.01). The solvent evaporationprocedure had no effect on the water sorption and solubility of the adhesives(p=0.21), irrespective of the storage media. When mass gain (i.e. water sorption) andmass loss (i.e. solubility) of adhesive disks were plotted against time, non-solvatedadhesive CSE was determined to have the lowest water sorption (Figure 2). CSE adhesive also presented significantly lower meansof SL (-2.9 μg/mm3) (p<0.05). When the WS and SL were compared as afunction of the storage media, the means were statistically lower when the specimenswere immersed in mineral oil. The net water uptake means varied from 5.4 to 24.6%among the adhesive systems (Table 1) and weredetermined to be significantly lower for the CSE Bond (5.4%). All the adhesivesstored in water presented a time-dependent increase in water sorption and solubility,whereas the adhesives stored in mineral oil presented lower sorption and solubilitymeans (Figure 2). In spite of the variation inmass as a function of the time, CSE was the only adhesive to present similar weightafter the desiccation process in comparison to that obtained at m1 (Figure 2).

Bottom Line: Statistical analysis revealed that only the factor "adhesive" was significant (p<0.05).CSE (control) presented significantly lower net uptake (5.4%).Although the evaporation has no effect in the kinetics of water diffusion, the nanoleakage expression of the adhesives tested increases when the solvents are not evaporated.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Brasilia, Brasília, DF, Brazil.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the influence of solvent evaporation in the kinetics of water diffusion (water sorption-WS, solubility-SL, and net water uptake) and nanoleakage of adhesive systems.

Material and methods: Disk-shaped specimens (5.0 mm in diameter x 0.8 mm in thickness) were produced (N=48) using the adhesives: Clearfil S3 Bond (CS3)/Kuraray, Clearfil SE Bond - control group (CSE)/Kuraray, Optibond Solo Plus (OS)/Kerr and Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SBU)/3M ESPE. The solvents were either evaporated for 30 s or not evaporated (N=24/per group), and then photoactivated for 80 s (550 mW/cm2). After desiccation, the specimens were weighed and stored in distilled water (N=12) or mineral oil (N=12) to evaluate the water diffusion over a 7-day period. Net water uptake (%) was also calculated as the sum of WS and SL. Data were submitted to 3-way ANOVA/Tukey's test (α=5%). The nanoleakage expression in three additional specimens per group was also evaluated after ammoniacal silver impregnation after 7 days of water storage under SEM.

Results: Statistical analysis revealed that only the factor "adhesive" was significant (p<0.05). Solvent evaporation had no influence in the WS and SL of the adhesives. CSE (control) presented significantly lower net uptake (5.4%). The nanoleakage was enhanced by the presence of solvent in the adhesives.

Conclusions: Although the evaporation has no effect in the kinetics of water diffusion, the nanoleakage expression of the adhesives tested increases when the solvents are not evaporated.

Show MeSH