| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
RESEARCH REPORT |
1 ACTA, Department of Dental Materials Science, Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
2 Universiteit Utrecht-Debye Institute, Department of Inorganic Chemistry and Catalysis, Sorbonnelaan 16, 3508 TB Utrecht, Netherlands;
*corresponding author, a.feilzer{at}acta.nl
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
KEY WORDS: viscoelasticity • shrinkage • stress-strain • composites
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Many of today’s commercially available dental resin composite materials utilize Bisphenol-A-glycidyldimethacrylate (BisGMA) as major monomer in the resin. This viscous, bulky bifunctional monomer has a high reactivity, high molecular weight, undergoes low polymerization shrinkage, and produces a cross-linked, three-dimensional resin network (Peutzfeldt, 1997). Due to the high viscosity of BisGMA, the resin phase of dental composites has to be diluted to enhance the handling of composite pastes. The monomer most often used for this purpose is triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), a conventional glycol dimethacrylate. However, diluting the composite with TEGDMA has been shown to have less desirable effects on the properties of the resin, since it increases water sorption and polymerization shrinkage (Kalachandra and Kusy, 1991; Kalachandra et al., 1993). On the other hand, the relative ease of flow of diluted resin composites during the early stage of curing may cause lower polymerization shrinkage stresses. It was hypothesized that an increase of the TEGDMA/BisGMA ratio in a resin composite will lead to a more favorable viscous flow property.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the TEGDMA/BisGMA ratio on the curing shrinkage-stress development, the degree of conversion, and viscoelastic property of experimental two-paste composites restoratives during curing.
|
MATERIALS & METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
. The chemicals for the preparation of the composites were used as received. The specific composition was chosen to mimic, as close as possible, commercially available conventional dimethacrylate composites. The resins were de-gassed for 15 min under vacuum prior to the determination of density by pycnometry. Silanated glass filler (LAB 7373, Schott glas, Landshut, Germany) was used to load the resin to a content of 70 wt% (50.4 ± 0.4 vol%). The glass filler was silanated by Heraeus Kulzer GmbH & Co. (Wehrheim, Germany) by means of a dry-blending process (Erdrich and Grundler, personal communications, 1999). Density was equal to 2.64 g/cm3 (23°C), and mean particle size was equal to 1.53 µm.
|
One hour after the start of the experiment, the resin composite was subjected to tensile loading (5 µm/min) until fracture. The measurements were repeated 3 times at room temperature (23 ± 1°C). During the measurement, the data (time, load, and displacement signal) were collected simultaneously (sample rate = 18 datapoints/sec). The measurements were started within 2 min after the composites were mixed.
Volumetric Shrinkage
Volumetric shrinkage measurements (n = 3) were performed by mercury dilatometry at 23.0 ± 0.1°C (De Gee et al., 1981). The conversion of volumetric shrinkage to axial shrinkage was carried out according to the conversion factor as obtained in a previous study (Feilzer et al., 1989).
Parameter Identification on Stress-Strain Data
It was assumed that the mechanical properties of the composites are isotropic, and that the viscoelastic behavior of the composites in the early stage of curing can be described by the Maxwell model (Dauvillier et al., 2001). The axial load and displacement data from the oscillatory strain measurement were converted to normal stress (
) and strain (
) data by the use of equations 1 and 2, respectively:
 | (1) |
 | (2) |
in which A is the cross-sectional area of the cylindrical specimen (m2), F the recorded load response of the specimen (N), 
L is the displacement recorded by the LVDT transducers at the level of the specimen (m), and L0 the height of the specimen before being cured (m). The shrinkage and dynamic components in the stress data were isolated with the standard Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) smoothing procedure in Origin (version 5.0, Microcal, Northampton, MA, USA). We determined Maxwell’s model (Lakes, 1999) parameters (E = Young’s modulus and 
= viscosity) by applying a parameter identification procedure, as described in the Appendix (www.dentalresearch.org), on small time intervals (approx. 10 sec) in the stress-strain data. We calculated the strain for the small time intervals by adding the oscillatory strain of the dynamic experiment to the shrinkage strain, which was considered as a linear function:
 | (3) |
in which (t0) is the strain at the beginning of the small interval, A is the slope of the shrinkage strain (1/s), B is the amplitude, and 
the angular frequency (rad/s) of the applied oscillatory strain.
After parameter identification, the Maxwell model was loaded with the calculated parameters and shrinkage strain of the composite so that we could evaluate where in curing time the model simulates the real behavior of the composite. The stress relaxation time (
, = /E), which is the time required for the stress to decrease to 1/e ( 
37%) of its initial value, was calculated for each material as a function of curing time.
Infrared Spectroscopy
The degree of double-bond conversion in the composites during curing was measured on a Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectrometer (model 165, Biorad, Cambridge, MA, USA), equipped with a Deuterated TriGlycine Sulphate (DTGS) detector. All specimens were measured in a Teflon mold (d = 5.4 mm, h = 5.0 mm) placed directly on the crystal (Golden Gate Single Reflection Diamond ATR, 1050 0 series, Graseby, Smyrna, TN, USA). Absorbance spectra were taken before (individual pastes) and during (mixed pastes) the curing of the resin composites. The kinetic scan was started within 60 sec after the composites were mixed. The double-bond conversion (
) for each spectrum was determined by the following equation:
 | (4) |
where ct is the ratio of the peak height of the methacrylate double-bond stretch vibration at 1636 cm-1 to the peak height of the internal reference (1,4-disubstituted phenylene) stretch vibration at 1582 cm-1 (Rueggeberg et al., 1990) at time t, and u is the same (mean) ratio for the individual pastes. The static and kinetic scans were measured 3 and 5 times, respectively.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The infrared results are summarized in Table 2. The double-bond conversion rate was determined from the time derivative of the mean conversion-time data. Student’s t test with pooled variance (p < 0.05) demonstrated that the maximum amount of double-bond conversion after 1 hr of curing was similar for the 50 and 70 wt% TEGDMA composites.
|
lists the mechanical parameters of the experimental composites. The Maxwell model was used up to 15 min after specimens were mixed, because the model had been proven valid during this curing phase (Fig.).
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
). Although the presence of more TEGDMA in the resin leads to more flowable composites, as noticeable during handling, it does not provide the desired prolonged predominant viscous state of the composite. At maximum flowability, only 20% of the total shrinkage had been completed before a stress response was registered.
Infrared Spectroscopy
The increase of double-bond conversion with TEGDMA (Table 2) is in agreement with that reported in the literature (Ferracane and Greener, 1986; Venhoven et al., 1993). The conversion after 1 hr of curing was limited to values below 60%, which is in line with the range of 55-80% observed for light-activated dental dimethacrylate resins (Barron et al., 1992; Lovell et al., 1999).
The rise of the double-bond conversion rate to a maximum, even though the amount of monomer is diminishing, is quite common in multifunctional dimethacrylate systems, and is known as auto-acceleration (Challa, 1993). A close look at the maximum conversion rates (Table 2) reveals that an increase of TEGDMA in the resin causes the maximum conversion rate to shift significantly (p < 0.05) to higher values, with an optimum for the composite with 50 wt% TEGDMA in the resin. This is in agreement with results found in experimental light-activated resins, wherein the highest maximum rate is observed in the range of 25 to 50 wt% TEGDMA (Barron et al., 1992; Lovell et al., 1999). The occurrence of a maximum rate at this specific resin composition is attributed to the excellent diluent property of TEGDMA, and the high reactivity of BisGMA (Moore, 1976; Cowperthwaite et al., 1981). In this specific resin composition range, sufficient TEGDMA is present to reduce the initial viscosity of the composite, thereby increasing the mobility of the reactive BisGMA. When the composite contains too much TEGDMA in the resin, then the less-reactive TEGDMA dominates the reaction, resulting in a slower polymerization reaction.
It is striking that the point of curing time at maximum conversion rate is related not to the value of the maximum conversion rate (Table 2), but to the amount of TEGDMA in the resin. The explanation for this observation may be that the composites did not have the same inhibition periods, due to different amounts of inhibitor. Since these monomers were used as received (Table 1), the total inhibitor concentration decreased when BisGMA was replaced by TEGDMA, resulting in shorter inhibiton time periods.
Comparison of the point of time of the maximum conversion rate (Table 2) with the start point of shrinkage stress development (Fig. 1) reveals that the transition from auto-acceleration to auto-deceleration (Challa, 1993) occurs in the pre-gel curing phase of the composite. It was after 200 sec, in which 17% or more of the measured double-bond conversion had been completed, that a stress response was registered. Although in the early stage of polymerization the conversion of monomers into polymeric chains is dominant (Rabek, 1993), it may be expected that up to 17% double-bond conversion, some cross-linking of the polymer chains may have occurred, since both TEGDMA and BisGMA are cross-linking agents. The fact that the composite structure is still capable of flowing predominantly up to 17% double-bond conversion indicates that the build-up of the resin network may proceed with the formation of isolated cross-linked polymer segments, which can slip along one another.
Maxwell Model
The evaluation results of the Maxwell model (Fig.) show that even in the post-gel phase of curing, the composites can still flow permanently for a considerable period of time. This may irreversibly indicate that the interpolymer cross-linking reaction proceeds more slowly than the intrapolymer cross-linking reaction. Diffusion limitation may be the cause of the slow cross-linking reaction between growing polymer segments, as the material becomes stiffer. As soon as all polymer segments are connected to each other, viscous flow is highly restricted to processes such as local re-arrangement in the polymer network and movement of the unreacted vinyl groups, and to porosity in the composites, introduced by mixing and the formation of carbon dioxide (Challa, 1993). From this point in curing time, Maxwell’s model is no longer valid, because it predicts permanent viscous flow. In this study, this point is reached at approximately 15-20 min (Fig.), wherein 40% or more double-bonds have been converted.
Parameter Identification
The analogy between the polymerization rate of BisGMA-TEGDMA composites (Table 2) with their stiffness and viscosity development during curing (Table 3) can be explained by the nature of the monomer subunits in the polymer network. BisGMA is stiffer than TEGDMA, because the aromatic group in the central part of the molecule causes much larger barriers to free rotation about the bonds, while the ether (C-O-C) linkages in the TEGDMA molecule give rise to only slight barriers to free rotation about the bonds (Peutzfeldt, 1997). Furthermore, BisGMA molecules are capable of forming hydrogen bonding, which restricts sliding of polymer chains, thereby increasing the viscosity of the system.
The calculated E, , and values were all positive and increased with curing time (Table 3). No explanation was found for the high relaxation time value for the 30 wt% TEGDMA composite at 240 sec of curing.
The curves in the Fig. and the stress-relaxation time values listed in Table 3 show that for the most reactive BisGMA-TEGDMA composites, post-gel shrinkage is the decisive factor in the shrinkage stress development of the composite. Too much TEGDMA in the resin leads to a higher concentration of double-bond conversion, and thus higher post-gel shrinkage. Since the stress relaxation time values are only slightly lower than for the 50 wt% TEGDMA composite, ultimate shrinkage stress development is higher.
The composite with the lowest content of TEGDMA undergoes low post-gel shrinkage and develops low stress relaxation time values. As a consequence, the shrinkage stress is favorably low, which gives the bond to the cavity wall a chance to form and remain intact. However, due to the restricted mobility of the BisGMA monomer, fewer double-bonds are converted. As a result, relatively more unreacted monomer will be present in the composite. The presence of unreacted monomers is undesirable, because these monomers will slowly leach into the surrounding medium, resulting in deleterious effects on the mechanical stability and biocompatibility of the restoration (Ferracane, 1994; Geurtsen, 1998).
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
Received October 15, 2002; Last revision April 29, 2003; Accepted June 27, 2003
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Challa G (1993). Polymer chemistry—an introduction. New York: Ellis Horwood Limited.
Cowperthwaite GF, Foy JJ, Malloy MA (1981). The nature of the crosslinking matrix found in dental composite filling materials and sealants. In: Biomedical and dental applications of polymers. Koblitz FF, editor. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 379-385.
Dauvillier BS, Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL (2000). Visco-elastic parameters of dental restorative materials during setting. J Dent Res 79:818–823.
Dauvillier BS, Hübsch PF, Aarnts MP, Feilzer AJ (2001). Modeling of viscoelastic behavior of dental chemically activated resin composites during curing. J Biomed Mater Res 58:16–26.[ISI][Medline]
Davidson CL, de Gee AJ (1984). Relaxation of polymerization contraction stresses by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res 63:146–148.
De Gee AJ, Davidson CL, Smith A (1981). A modified dilatometer for continuous recording of volumetric polymerization shrinkage of composite restorative materials. J Dent 9:36–42.[ISI][Medline]
Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL (1989). Increased wall-to-wall curing contraction in thin bonded resin layers. J Dent Res 68:48–50.
Ferracane JL (1994). Elution of leachable components from composites. J Oral Rehabil 21:441–452.[ISI][Medline]
Ferracane JL, Greener EH (1986). The effect of resin formulation on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of dental restorative resins. J Biomed Mater Res 20:121–131.[ISI][Medline]
Geurtsen W (1998). Substances released from dental resin composites and glass ionomer cements. Eur J Oral Sci 106:687–695.[ISI][Medline]
Hübsch PF (1995). A numerical and analytical investigation into some mechanical aspects of adhesive dentistry (dissertation). Swansea: University of Wales.
Kalachandra S, Kusy RP (1991). Comparison of water sorption by methacrylate and dimethacrylate monomers and their corresponding polymers. Polymer 32:2428–2434.
Kalachandra S, Taylor DF, DePorter CD, Grubbs HJ, McGrath JE (1993). Polymeric materials for composite matrixes in biological environments. Polymer 34:778–782.
Lakes RS (1999). Viscoelastic solids. New York: CRC Press.
Lovell LG, Newman SM, Bowman CN (1999). The effects of light intensity, temperature, and comonomer composition on the polymerization behavior of dimethacrylate dental resins. J Dent Res 78:1469–1476.
Moore JE (1976). Photopolymerization of multifunctional acrylates and methacrylates. Am Chem Soc, Coatings and Plastics Preprints 36:747–753.
Peutzfeldt A (1997). Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. Eur J Oral Sci 105:97–116.[ISI][Medline]
Rabek JF (1993). Experimental and analytical methods for the investigation of radiation curing. In: Radiation curing in polymer science and technology. Rabek JF, editor. London: Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.
Rueggeberg FA, Hashinger DT, Fairhurst CW (1990). Calibration of FTIR conversion analysis of contemporary dental resin composites. Dent Mater 6:241–249.[ISI][Medline]
Venhoven BA, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL (1993). Polymerization contraction and conversion of light-curing BisGMA-based methacrylate resins. Biomaterials 14:871–875.[ISI][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  F. Goncalves, C.S. Pfeifer, J.L. Ferracane, and R.R. Braga Contraction Stress Determinants in Dimethacrylate Composites J. Dent. Res., April 1, 2008; 87(4): 367 - 371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.W. Park and J.L. Ferracane Residual Stress in Composites with the Thin-ring-slitting Approach. J. Dent. Res., October 1, 2006; 85(10): 945 - 949. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. S. Costa Pfeifer, R. R. Braga, and P. E. C. Cardoso Influence of cavity dimensions, insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V restorations J Am Dent Assoc, February 1, 2006; 137(2): 197 - 202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| IADR Journals | Advances in Dental Research ® |
| Journal of Dental Research ® | Critical Reviews (1990-2004) |
Maxwell model) of experimental resin composites (C-factor = 0.5) during curing. The onset in shrinkage stress (= gel-point) for the 30, 50, and 70 wt% TEGDMA composites was 192, 180, and 190 sec, respectively. Error bars indicate the standard deviations of the calculated mean (n = 3).