Literatuur

http://www.dentalnews.com.br/downloads/artigos-cientificos/pinos-RTD/Ma…

A review of adhesion science.

Sally J. Marshalla,c,∗, Stephen C. Bayned, Robert Baierb, Antoni P. Tomsiac,a, Grayson W. Marshalla,c

a University of California, San Francisco, United States b University at Buffalo, United States c Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States d University of Michigan, United States

Micro-mechanical bonding is the basis of most of contemporary adhesive dentistry. It depends on microsized relief of enamel and dentin surfaces to allowadhesive penetration that interlocks it into surface spaces. The surface relief is created by acid etching. The interlocking occurs at two levels. The first involves the formation of microtags of resin around enamel prisms or within dentinal tubules. The second involves amuch finer penetration of adhesive nanotags among enamel crystals or into the dentin collagen spaces. Nanotags seem to bemuch more important to overall retention and can be imagined as a nano-interdigitation mechanism. These adhesive bonds involve the formation of an interphase. Determination of parameters such as permeability coefficient helps to predict the contributions of diffusion bonding [13]. Another interesting result of interphase adhesion is the phenomenon of stringing. During debonding, strings of adhesive are stretched across the original interface, bridging the gap, and preventing complete crack formation.* This discourages the propagation of a crack at the interface. This phenomenon is common with general-purpose adhesives or glues. Nano-interdigitation also occurs when adhesive monomers diffuse into existing polymer phases, polymerize, and become molecularly intertwined with existing molecules. While there are no new chemical bonds formed between the old and new polymer molecules, breaking of one or the other polymer chains is generally required to make the interface fail. This is a mechanism that commonly occurs with methyl methacrylate monomer in acrylic dough systems used for denture bases and teeth or with acrylic bone cements. A related event occurs when atoms or molecules diffuse across an interface, rearrange the bulk material, and eliminate the original boundaries.With metal and ceramic systems, this type of diffusion requires heating to promote atomic movements [1]. A good example is sintering of ceramic or metal powders.


http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~mr/research/adhesion.htm




http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbm.10364/abstract?deniedAcc…

The morphologic results in corroboration with the spectroscopic data suggest that as a result of adhesive phase separation the hybrid layer is not an impervious 3-dimensional collagen/polymer network but a porous web characterized by hydrophobic BisGMA-rich particles distributed in a hydrophilic HEMA-rich matrix.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18621460

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

Small and hydrophilic monomers as HEMA and TEGDMA can easily penetrate human tissues. For biocompatibility issues it is therefore better to avoid such monomers in dental adhesive formulations. The purpose of this study was (1) to determine the micro-tensile bond strength (muTBS) to enamel/dentin of a HEMA/TEGDMA-free three-step etch&rinse adhesive (cmf Adhesive System, Saremco), and (2) to characterize it's interfacial interaction with enamel/dentin using transmission electron microscopy (TEM).


http://ejo.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6/688.full

Biocompatibility of dental materials is usually neglected in dental practice. Most practitioners purchase materials that are commercially available without any concerns about their biocompatibility. Today, while a number of orthodontic adhesives are used by clinicians, most relevant studies concentrate on their physical properties such as shear bond strength with less emphasis on biological compatibility.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22192249

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

Methods used to measure and predict clinical biological responses to dental materials remain controversial, confusing, and to some extent, unsuccessful. The current paper reviews significant issues surrounding how we assess the biological safety of materials, with a historical summary and critical look at the biocompatibility literature. The review frames these issues from a U.S. perspective to some degree, but emphasizes their global nature and universal importance.

SIGNIFICANCE:

Today we ask materials to play increasingly sophisticated structural and therapeutic roles in patient treatment. To accommodate these roles, strategies to assess, predict, and monitor material safety need to evolve. This evolution will be driven not only by researchers and manufacturers, but also by patients and practitioners, who want to use novel materials in new ways to treat oral disease.



http://smooz.4your.net/masterson/files/Mechanisms.pdf

a b s t r a c t

The manner in which a mutually acceptable co-existence of biomaterials and tissues is developed and sustained has been the focus of attention in biomaterials science for many years, and forms the foundation of the subject of biocompatibility. There are many ways in which materials and tissues can be brought into contact such that this co-existence may be compromised, and the search for biomaterials that are able to provide for the best performance in devices has been based upon the understanding of all the interactions within biocompatibility phenomena. Our understanding of the mechanisms of biocompatibility has been restricted whilst the focus of attention has been long-term implantable devices. In this paper, over 50 years of experience with such devices is analysed and it is shown that, in the vast majority of circumstances, the sole requirement for biocompatibility in a medical device intended for long-term contact with the tissues of the human body is that the material shall do no harm to those tissues, achieved through chemical and biological inertness. Rarely has an attempt to introduce biological activity into a biomaterial been clinically successful in these applications. This essay then turns its attention to the use of biomaterials in tissue engineering, sophisticated cell, drug and gene delivery systems and applications in biotechnology, and shows that here the need for specific and direct interactions between biomaterials and tissue components has become necessary, and with this a new paradigm for biocompatibility has emerged. It is believed that once the need for this change is recognised, so our understanding of the mechanisms of biocompatibility will markedly improve.




Cavex unibond UniBond Sealer is een gevulde,
fluoride-ionen afgevende röntgenopake sealer.

http://www.cavex.nl/en/products/productcategory/23/sub-26/product-62


http://www.tandarts.nl/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=18596

:smt015