Water sorption, solubility and monomer elution from three commercial orthodontic adhesives

Main Article Content

Amnaj Likitkulthanaporn

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of this study were to study the water sorption, water solubility, and elution of three monomers Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, and BPA of three commercial orthodontic adhesives up to 7 days.


Materials and methods: The water sorption, water solubility and monomer elution from three commercial adhesives; one chemically cured; Unite (Unitek Corp., Monrovia, CA, USA), two light-cured;  Enlight (Ormco, Glendora, California, USA), and Grengloo (Ormco, Glendora, California, USA) were determined at four interval times of 1,3,5, and 7 days immersion. The adhesive specimen was prepared by polymerization in a cylindrical stainless steel mold with a diameter of 10 mm and 1 mm thickness. The water sorption and solubility protocol were done according to ISO 4049 specification. The concentration of Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, and BPA from the immersion medium was determined using High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett T3 test for water sorption and Tukey’s for elution test were done for multiple comparisons.


Results: Water sorption and water solubility were found to increase with storage time. It was found that they had similar water sorption and water solubility at 1 day (p>0.05) but differences were found at other time intervals (p<0.05). All adhesives had significantly differences in water sorption and solubility between 1 day and 7 days (p<0.05). Enlight and Unite had Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, and BPA elution at all time intervals, however in varied amount. Grengloo contains no Bis-GMA in the immersion medium at all time intervals. They were significantly differences among elution of the different adhesives at the same time (p<0.05) and among time intervals of the same adhesive (p<0.05) except Bis-GMA elution of Enlight at 1 day and 7 days (p>0.05) and BPA elution of Unite at 1 day and 7 days (p<0.05) which had similar results. Pearson’s correlation coefficient were found high correlation between water sorption and solubility (R2 =0.988). Only TEGDMA at 3 and 5 d found correlation with water sorption  (R2=0.754), and sol  (R2=0.878)    


Conclusion:  Water sorption and solubility of light-cure and chemically cured adhesives increase with storage time. The amount of monomer leached from the polymerized specimen from all adhesives seems to be varied.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Likitkulthanaporn A. Water sorption, solubility and monomer elution from three commercial orthodontic adhesives. M Dent J [Internet]. 2018 Apr. 30 [cited 2024 Jun. 19];38(1):45-56. Available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/mdentjournal/article/view/179243
Section
Original articles

References

1. Sunitha C, Kailasam V, Padmanabhan S, et al. Bisphenol A release from an orthodontic adhesive and its correlation with the degree of conversion on varying light-curing tip distances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140: 239-44.
2. Uysal T, Basciftci FA, Sener Y, et al. Conventional and high intensity halogen light effects on water sorption and microhardness of orthodontic adhesives. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 134-139.
3. Burtscher P. Stability of radicals in cured composite materials. Dent Mater 1993; 9: 218-222.
4. Gioka C, Bourauel C, Hiskia A, et al. Light-cured or chemically cured orthodontic adhesive resins? A selection based on the degree of cure, monomer leaching, and cytotoxicity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127: 413-9.
5. Ferracane JL. Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 2006; 22: 211–22.
6. Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Mechanical and physical properties of contemporary dental luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89: 127–34.
7. Mane SP, Gulve ND, Patani SN. Effectiveness of Clean-up Procedures on Stain Susceptibility of Different Orthodontic Adhesives. J Ind Orthod Soc 2014; 48: 251-255.
8. Ito S, Hashimoto M, Wadgaonkar B, et al. Effects of resin hydrophilicity on water sorption and changes in modulus of elasticity. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 6449–59.
9. Ferracane JL, Condon JR. Rate of elution of leachable components from composite. Dent Mater 1990; 6: 282-287.
10. Eliades T, Hiskia A, Eliades G, et al. Assessment of bisphenol-A release from orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131: 72-5
11. Miletic V, Santini A, Trkulja I. Quantification of monomer elution and carbon-carbon double bonds in dental adhesive systems using HP¬¬LC and micro-Raman spectroscopy. J Dent 2009; 37: 177-84.
12. Purushotaman D, Kailasam V, Chitharanjan AB. Bisphenol A release from orthodontic adhesives and its correlation with the degree of conversion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 147: 29-36.
13. Bationo R, Jordana F, Boileau MJ, et al. Release of monomers from orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 150: 491-498.
14. Malkoc S, Corekci B, Ulker HE, et al. Cytotoxic effects of orthodontic composites. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 759-764.
15. Ahrari F, Afshari JT, Poosti M, et al. Cytotoxicity of orthodontic bonding adhesive resins on human oral fibroblasts. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 32: 688-692.
16. Huang TH, Tsai CY, Chen SL, et al. An evaluation of the cytotoxic effects of orthodontic bonding adhesives upon a primary human oral gingival fibroblast culture and a permanent, human oral cancer-cell line. J Biomed Mater Res (Appl Biomater) 2002; 63: 814-821.
17. Takayanagi S, Tokunaga T, Liu X, et al. Endocrine disruptor bisphenol A strongly binds to human estrogen-related receptor gamma (ERRgamma) with high constitutive activity. Toxicol Lett 2006; 167: 95-105.
18. Schmalz G, Preiss A, Arenholt-Bindslev. Bisphenol-A content of resin monomers and related degradation products. Clin Oral Invest 1999; 3: 144-119.
19. Thonemann B, Schmalz G, Hiller KA, et al. Responses of L929 mouse fibroblasts, primary and immortalized bovine dental papilla-derived cell lines to dental resin components. Dent Mater 2002; 18: 318-323.
20. Emmler J, Seiss M, Kreppel H, et al. Cytotoxicity of the dental composite component TEGDMA and selected metabolic by-products in human pulmonary cells.
Dent Mater 2008; 24:1670-1675.
21. Lygre H, Hol PJ, Solheim E, et al. Organic leachables from polymer-based dental filling materials. European Journal. Oral Sciences 1999; 107: 378-83.
22. Al-Hiyasat AS, Darmani H. In vivo effects of BISGMA-a component of dental composite-on male mouse reproduction and fertility. J Biomed Mater Res A 2006; 78: 66-72.
23. Goldberg M. In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resin 467 components: a review. Clin Oral Invest 2008; 12: 1-8.
24. Olea N, Pulgar R, Perez P, et al. Estrpgenicity of resin-based composites and sealants used in dentistry. Environ Health Perspect 1996; 104: 298-305.
25. International Standard Organization (ISO) 4049 : 2009 Dentistry-Polymer-based filling, restorative and luting materials. Geneva, Switzerland.
26. Moreira FCL, Antoniosi Filho NR, Souza JB, et al. Sorption, solubility and residual monomers of a dental adhesive cured by different light-curing units. Braz Dent J. 2010; 21: 432-8.
27. United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA). Recommendations for chemistry data for indirect food additives petitions. USA, 1988.
28. Örtengren U, Andersson F, Elgh U, et al. Influence of pH and storage time on the sorption and solubility behaviour of three composite resin materials. J Dent 2001; 29: 35–41.
29. Martin N, Jedynakiewicz NM, Fisher AC. Hygroscopic expansion and solubility of composite restoratives. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 77–86.
30. Yiu CK, King NM, Pashley DH, et al. Effect of resin hydrophilicity and water storage on resin strength. Biomater 2004; 25: 5789–96.
31. Marghalani HY. Sorption and solubility characteristics of self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 187-98.
32. Sideridou I, Achilias DS, Spyroudi C, et al. Water sorption characteristics of light-cured dental resins and composites based on Bis-EMA/PCDMA. Biomater 2004; 25: 367-376.
33. Sideridou I, Tserki V, Papanastasiou G. Study of water sorption, solubility and modulus of elasticity of light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomater 2003; 24: 655–65.
34. Kalachandra S. Influence of fillers on the water sorption of composites. Dent Mater 1989; 5: 283-288.
35. Berger SB, Palialol ARM, Cavalli V, et al. Characterization of water sorption, solubility and filler particles of light-cured composite resins. Braz Dent J 2009; 20: 314-318.
36. Durner J, Spahl W, Zaspel J, et al. Eluted substances from unpolymerized and polymerized dental restorative materials and their Nernst partition coefficient. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 91–9.
37. Malacarne J, Carvalho RM, de Goes MF, et al. Water sorption/solubility of dental adhesive resins. Dent Mater. 2006 ; 22: 973-80.
38. Spahl W, Budzikiewicz H, Geurtsen W. Determination of leachable components from four commercial dental composites by gas and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. J Dent 1998; 26: 137-45.
39. Sideridou ID, Achilias DS. Elution study of unreacted Bis‐GMA, TEGDMA, UDMA, and Bis‐EMA from light‐cured dental resins and resin composites using HPLC. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 2005; 74: 617–626.