Difference of Chemical Bonds Between UDMA Bonding Agents with Ethanol Solvent and Acetone Solvent on Dentin Collagen

Nanik  Zubaidah; Ruslan  Effendy; Adioro  Soetojo; Tri  Estiyaningsih; Muhammad Iqbal  Tanzil; Khusnul  Khotimah

Authors

Nanik Zubaidah
Ruslan Effendy
Adioro Soetojo
Tri Estiyaningsih
Muhammad Iqbal Tanzil
Khusnul Khotimah

Keywords:

Dental Materials, Dental Bonding, Dentin, Dentin-Bonding Agents

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the difference of chemical bonds between urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) bonding agents with ethanol solvent and acetone solvent on dentin collagen. Material and Methods: This experimental comparison study used three groups: G1 (Control): UDMA and collagen; G2: UDMA, collagen and ethanol; and G3: UDMA, collagen and acetone. The groups were then pelleted and analysed with FTIR, then the peak value of carbonyl absorption band from each study group was calculated. The result of FTIR analysis and the peak of carbonyl absorption band (P) was calculated using the formula: P = (BC / AB) X 100; AB. BC is measured in centimeters. The study of chemical bond differences between ethanol-solvent UDMA agents compared with acetone-solvent on dentin collagen resulted in a graph of peak of carbonyl absorption bands of UDMA and dentin collagen groups. To determine the chemical bonds of UDMA from the top of the carbonyl ester absorption bands with wavenumber absorption in range 1700-1750 cm-1, the decreasing peak of the carbonyl absorption bands is assumed as more chemical bonds that formed. Data were analysed using Anova one way and Tukey HSD test. Results: There were significant differences between the three study groups (p<0.05). Conclusion: UDMA bonding agents' chemical bonds with acetone solvent are much higher than the chemical bonds between UDMA bonding agents with ethanol solvent on dentin collagen.

References

Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials. 12th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2012.

Kumar JS, Jayalakshmi S. Bond failure and its prevention in composite restoration - a review. J Pharm Sci Res 2016; 8(7):627-31.

Spencer P, Ye Q, Park J, Topp EM, Misra A, Marangos O, et al. Adhesive/dentin interface: the weak link in the composite restoration. Ann Biomed Eng 2010; 38(6):1989-2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-010-9969-6

Barszczewska-Rybarek IM. Characterization of urethane-dimethacrylate derivatives as alternative monomers for the restorative composite matrix. Dent Mater 2014; 30(12):1336-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.09.008

Ubaldini ALM, Baesso ML, Sehn E, Sato F, Benetti AR, Pascotto RC. Fourier transform infrared photoacoustic spectroscopy study of physicochemical interaction between human dentin and etch-&-rinse adhesives in a simulated moist bond technique. J Biomed Opt 2012; 17(6):065002. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.17.6.065002

Shin TP, Yao X, Huenergardt R, Walker MP, Wang Y. Morphological and chemical characterization of bonding hydrophobic adhesive to dentin using ethanol wet bonding technique. Dent Mater 2009; 25(9):1050-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.03.006

Ekambaram M, Yiu CKY, Matinlinna JP. An overview of solvents in resin–dentin bonding. Int J Adhes Adhes 2015; 57:22-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.09.007

Garcia G, Fernandes KBP, Garcia FCP, D’Alpino PHP, da Rocha Svizero N, Wang L. Solvent retention of contemporary commercial dentin bonding agents in a demineralized dentin matrix. Eur J Dent 2010; 4(3):293-7. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1697842

Cardoso PC, Lopes GC, Vieira LCC, Baratieri LN. Effect of solvent type on microtensile bond strength of a total-etch one-bottle adhesive system to moist or dry dentin. Oper Dent 2005; 30(3):376-81.

Chen Y, Zou C, Mastalerz M, Hu S, Gasaway C, Tao X. Applications of micro-fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ftir) in the geological sciences - a review. Int J Mol Sci 2015; 16(12):30223-50. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms161226227

Prasetyo AI, Kunarti S, Soetojo A, Prasetyo EA. Chemical bond strength difference between 4-meta bonding agents with ethanol and acetone solvent on type i collagen. J Int Dent Med Res 2018; 11(2):567-71.

Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 2007; 28(26):3757-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044

Barszczewska-Rybarek IM. A Guide through the dental dimethacrylate polymer network structural characterization and interpretation of physico-mechanical properties: review. Materials 2019; 12(24):4057. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12244057

Jayaprakash T, Srinivasan MR, Indira R. Evaluation of the effect of surface moisture on dentinal tensile bond strength to dentine adhesive: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13(3):116-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.71640

Normayanti N, Soetojo A, Pribadi N. The difference between residual monomer dentin bonding HEMA and UDMA with acetone and ethanol solvent after binding to type I collagen. Dent J 2018; 51(4):169-72. https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v51.i4.p169-172

Irmak O, Baltacioglu IH, Ulusoy N, Bagis YH. Solvent type influences bond strength to air or blot-dried dentin. BMC Oral Health 2016; 16(1):77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-016-0247-3

Koliniotou-Koumpia E, Kouros P, Koumpia E, Helvatzoglou-Antoniades M. Shear bond strength of a “solvent-free” adhesive versus contemporary adhesive systems. Braz J Oral Sci 2014; 13(1):64-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/1677-3225v13n1a13

Silva e Souza MH, Carneiro KGK, Lobato MF, Silva e Souza PDAR, de Góes MF. Adhesive systems: important aspects related to their composition and clinical use. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18(3):207-14. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572010000300002

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(12):1473-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.12.003

Zanchi CH, Münchow EA, Ogliari FA, de Carvalho RV, Chersoni S, Prati C, et al. 2011. A new approach in self-etching adhesive formulations: Replacing HEMA for surfactant dimethacrylate monomers. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2011; 99(1):51-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.31871