You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/128521
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAgee, Kelli A.-
dc.contributor.authorPrakki, Anuradha-
dc.contributor.authorAbu-Haimed, Tariq-
dc.contributor.authorNaguib, Ghada H.-
dc.contributor.authorAbu Nawareg, Manar-
dc.contributor.authorTezvergil-Mutluay, Arzu-
dc.contributor.authorScheffel, Debora L. S.-
dc.contributor.authorChen, Chen-
dc.contributor.authorJang, Seung Soon-
dc.contributor.authorHwang, Hyea-
dc.contributor.authorBrackett, Martha-
dc.contributor.authorGregoire, Genevieve-
dc.contributor.authorTay, Franklin R.-
dc.contributor.authorBreschi, Lorenzo-
dc.contributor.authorPashley, David H.-
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-21T13:10:36Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T20:59:48Z-
dc.date.available2015-10-21T13:10:36Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T20:59:48Z-
dc.date.issued2015-03-01-
dc.identifierhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0109564114006903-
dc.identifier.citationDental Materials. Oxford: Elsevier Sci Ltd, v. 31, n. 3, p. 205-216, 2015.-
dc.identifier.issn0109-5641-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/128521-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/128521-
dc.description.abstractObjective. This work measured the amount of bound versus unbound water in completely-demineralized dentin.Methods. Dentin beams prepared from extracted human teeth were completely demineralized, rinsed and dried to constant mass. They were rehydrated in 41% relative humidity (RH), while gravimetrically measuring their mass increase until the first plateau was reached at 0.064 (vacuum) or 0.116 g H2O/g dry mass (Drierite). The specimens were then exposed to 60% RH until attaining the second plateau at 0.220 (vacuum) or 0.191 g H2O/g dry mass (Drierite), and subsequently exposed to 99% RH until attaining the third plateau at 0.493 (vacuum) or 0.401 g H2O/g dry mass (Drierite).Results. Exposure of the first layer of bound water to 0% RH for 5 min produced a -0.3% loss of bound water; in the second layer of bound water it caused a -3.3% loss of bound water; in the third layer it caused a -6% loss of bound water. Immersion in 100% ethanol or acetone for 5 min produced a 2.8 and 1.9% loss of bound water from the first layer, respectively; it caused a -4 and -7% loss of bound water in the second layer, respectively; and a -17 and -23% loss of bound water in the third layer. Bound water represented 21-25% of total dentin water. Chemical dehydration of water-saturated dentin with ethanol/acetone for 1 min only removed between 25 and 35% of unbound water, respectively.Signcance. Attempts to remove bound water by evaporation were not very successful. Chemical dehydration with 100% acetone was more successful than 100% ethanol especially the third layer of bound water. Since unbound water represents between 75 and 79% of total matrix water, the more such water can be removed, the more resin can be infiltrated. (C) 2014 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en
dc.description.sponsorshipNIDCR-
dc.description.sponsorshipGRU/GT-
dc.description.sponsorshipKing Abdulaziz University-
dc.format.extent205-216-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.-
dc.sourceWeb of Science-
dc.subjectAdhesive dentistryen
dc.subjectBound wateren
dc.subjectBulk wateren
dc.subjectCollagenen
dc.subjectDentinen
dc.subjectHydrogen bondingen
dc.titleWater distribution in dentin matrices: Bound vs. unbound wateren
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionGeorgia Regents University (GRU)-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de Toronto-
dc.contributor.institutionKing Abdulaziz University-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Turku-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.contributor.institutionNanjing Med University-
dc.contributor.institutionGeorgia Institute of Technology-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Toulouse III-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Bologna-
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Oral Biology, College of Dental Medicine, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, GA 30912-1129, USA-
dc.description.affiliationFaculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada-
dc.description.affiliationFaculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia-
dc.description.affiliationAdhesive Dentistry Research Group, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland-
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Endodontology and Oral Mucosa, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Disease, Nanjing Medical University, Affiliated Hospital of Stomatology, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China-
dc.description.affiliationSchool of Materials Science and Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA-
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Biomaterials, Faculty of Odontology, University of Toulouse III, Toulouse, France-
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, DIBINEM, University of Bologna and IGM-CNR, Unit of Bologna, Bologna, Italy-
dc.description.affiliationUnespUniversidade Estadual Paulista, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Araraquara School of Dentistry, Araraquara, SP, Brazil-
dc.description.sponsorshipIdNIDCR: R01 DE015306-
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.12.007-
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000349759600004-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito-
dc.relation.ispartofDental Materials-
Appears in Collections:Artigos, TCCs, Teses e Dissertações da Unesp

There are no files associated with this item.
 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.