4.6 Article

Effect of co-initiator ratio on the polymer properties of experimental resin composites formulated with camphorquinone and phenyl-propanedione

期刊

DENTAL MATERIALS
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 369-375

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.08.003

关键词

Amine; Camphorquinone; Degree of conversion; Phenyl-propanedione; Polymerization; Resin composite

资金

  1. CAPES [BEX 3667/05-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To evaluate the effect of amine ratio (ethyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate, EDMAB) on P the maximum rate of polymerization (R-p(max)), degree of conversion (DC), Knoop hardness (KH), water sorption (Wsp), water solubility (Wsl) and color changes (Delta E) over time of resin composites formulated with the photoinitiators camphorquinone (CQ), phenylpropanedione (PPD) and CQ-PPD in combination. Materials and methods. Experimental resin composites were made with photoinitiator:amine ratios of 2:1, 1:1, 1:1.5 and 1:2 by weight, R-p(max) was evaluated with differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), DC with DSC and Fourier transformed infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, KH with Knoop indentation, Wsp and Wsl adapted from ISO 4049; and color with a chromameter. The results were analyzed with two-way ANOVAnlukey's multiple comparison test (p < 0.05). Results. The higher the amine ratio in the composite, the higher was DC, R-p(max), and KH, P and the lower was Wsl, regardless of the photoinitiator type. The use of PPD alone resulted in poorer properties than CQ and CQ-PPD. Many factors seem to affect the color changes and the b-axis data revealed that the higher the amine ratio, the higher was the +b value (yellowing) for CQ and CQ-PPD formulations. Conclusions. Higher amine ratios led to improved polymer proper-ties, but also produced more yellowing in resin composites with CQ and CQ-PPD. The use of PPD alone was not advantageous for producing good final properties when compared to CQ and CQ-PPD. (C) 2008 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据