Follow us on :


Take a look at the Recent articles

Ultrasonic treatment reduced residual monomer in methyl methacrylate-based orthodontic base-plate materials

Pajima Thaitammayanon

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Henri-Dunant Road, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

E-mail : aa

Chintana Sirichompun

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Henri-Dunant Road, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

Chairat Wiwatwarrapan

Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Henri-Dunant Road, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

DOI: 10.15761/DOCR.1000251

Article
Article Info
Author Info
Figures & Data

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effect of ultrasonic treatment time on the level of residual monomer (LRM) in methyl methacrylate (MMA)-based orthodontic base-plate materials.

Methods: Forty-eight-disc specimens with a 50-mm diameter and 3-mm thickness fabricated from Orthocryl (OC, Dentaurum) and Orthoplast (OP, Vertex) self-cure acrylic were prepared according to their manufacturers’ instructions and ISO 20795-2 (2013). They were randomly divided into eight groups (n=6): Group I, untreated controls; Groups II and III, immersed in room temperature water for 24 and 72 h respectively; Groups IV-VIII immersed in 50°C water in an ultrasonic bath for 3, 5, 10, 15 and 20 min respectively. The LRM was determined using a high-performance liquid chromatography. Data were analyzed by a one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test (P < 0.05).

Results: The LRM in OC II-VIII groups were significantly lower than those in the OP II-VIII, and were lower than that in the OC I. The LRM in OP III group was lower than that in the OP I. The LRM in OP VI-VIII groups were not significantly different from that in the OP III.

Conclusion: Water immersion at 50°C in an ultrasonic bath for 10-20 min reduced the LRM in MMA-based orthodontic base-plate materials. The results revealed a convenient reduction of the residual monomer within a short period of time in clinical practice.

Key words

high performance liquid chromatography, orthodontic base-plate materials, residual monomer, ultrasonic bath, water immersion

Introduction

Orthodontic treatment can be with either fixed or removable appliances. Polymethyl methacrylate, acrylic resin has been widely used in the constructions of both active and passive removable orthodontic appliances for many years [1]. Orthodontic appliances are used for newborn patients with cleft lip and palate, space maintenance, tipping teeth, overbite reduction, thumb-sucking deterrence, block movements and retention after active treatment [2-4]. The appliances are used in children, adult and elderly patients. Moreover, the base plate of orthodontic appliance is kept in contact with oral mucosa for a long time during treatment.

For fabrication, two techniques are possible: a doughing technique, in which liquid and powder are mixed together, is widely utilized in prosthodontics. However, a spray-on technique, in which the polymer is saturated by its monomer, is commonly utilized in orthodontics for removable orthodontic appliances [5].

During the polymerization reaction of acrylic resin, not all of the methyl methacrylate (MMA) monomer is converted into polymer; unreacted monomer called residual monomer (RM) is left [6,7]. When the orthodontic base plate contacts saliva and mucosa, RM will be leached from the acrylic resin to the oral environment [8]. The RM has been reported toxicity and allergic reaction [9-12]. Allergy from the RM is varied among patients from a localized hypersensitive reaction to some systemic involvements [9,10,13-16]. In orthodontics, Gonçalves et al reported a 60-year-old woman who had an allergic reaction to the residual MMA after the insertion of a retainer for one month [9]. Consequently, it is desirable to reduce the residual MMA content in acrylic resin to as low a level as possible, prior to insertion in the patient’s mouth.

In orthodontics, it has been recommended that the RM content of autopolymerized acrylic resin could be reduced by immersion in water for 24 h before usage [17]. In prosthodontics, it has been suggested that dentures should be immersed in water at 50°C for 60 min [18]. However, these methods take a long time to reduce the amount of RM. In some clinical situation, an immediate delivery of the removable appliance to the patient is needed, right after the repairing process and the fabricating an obturator to the cleft lip and palate newborn patient. Therefore, reduction of the RM level within a short period of time should be considered.

An ultrasonic bath is widely used for cleaning dental instruments. Several studies have reported the use of ultrasonic baths to extract chemical substances and nutrients in industry, e.g., extracting mangiferin from Mangifera indica leaves, oil from tobacco, and phenolic compounds from sugar cane [19-21]. Ultrasonic treatment has been firstly reported to reduce the RM level of auto-polymerized acrylic resins used in prosthodontics [22]. However, its effectiveness in eluting RM from orthodontic acrylic resin has not been investigated.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of residual monomer (LRM) in MMA-based orthodontic base-plate materials after water immersion at room temperature and after immersion in an ultrasonic water bath under various treatment times.

Materials and methods

Sample preparations

Forty-eight disc specimens, 3 mm thick x 50 mm diameter, were prepared from each of two brands of MMA-based orthodontic base-plate materials, that is, Orthocryl (OC; Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) and Orthoplast (OP; Vertex Dental, Zeist, The Netherlands), by a spray-on technique (Table 1). The powder to liquid ratio was 2.7:1 in each specimen. The specimens were processed in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions and ISO 20795-2 (2013) [23]. Powder was placed into a stainless steel mold (50±0.1 mm diameter and 3.0±0.1 mm deep) and liquid dripped into the powder. The powder and the liquid were reapplied, until the mold was full. The specimens were placed in a pressure cooker for 20 min (0.22 MPa at 45°C for OC; 0.25 MPa at 55°C for OP according to the manufacturers’ instructions), kept in the dark at 23±2°C for 24±5 h, and wet-ground equally on both sides with P500 and P1200-grit silicon carbide papers. The specimens were checked with a digital caliper to ensure a diameter of 50±1 mm and a thickness of 2.0±0.1 mm (Table 1).

Table 1.Chemical composition of MMA-based orthodontic base-plate materials

Brand

Components

Composition

Manufacturer

Batch number

Orthocryl

(OC)

Powder

Polymethyl methacrylate

Dentaurum, Ispringen,Germany

98210600

Liquid

Methyl methacrylate,

methyl acrylate,

methyl isobutyrate>90%;

ethylene dimethacrylate<10%;

2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-p-cresol <1%

91839501

Orthoplast

(OP)

Powder

Polymethyl methacrylate >99%, accelerator <1%,

color agents <1%

Vertex, Zeist,

The Netherlands

B4-957

Liquid

Methyl methacrylate >95%,

ethyleneglycoldimethacrylate<5%

14003860

Each brand was divided into eight groups, six specimens per group: Group I, untreated controls; Groups II and III immersed in water at room temperature for 24 and 72 h respectively; Groups IV-VIII immersed in water at 50°C in an ultrasonic bath at 40 kHz for 3, 5, 10, 15 and 20 min respectively.

Residual monomer extraction procedure following ISO 20795-2 (2013)

Each specimen disc was first broken into small pieces. Approximately 650 mg of each broken disc pieces were weighed by a digital scale (Sartorius BP110s, Sartorius, Germany) to four decimal places and treated with 10 ml of tetrahydrofuran (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) in a 10 ml volumetric flask for each sample solution. The broken pieces from each specimen were distributed into three sample solutions for the pass/fail determination test for RM. The sample solution was agitated by a magnetic stirring apparatus at 25°C for 72±2 h. A 2-ml of the resultant slurry was transferred to a 10 ml volumetric flask and methanol (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt., Germany) added to a total volume of 10 ml and the solution shaken to precipitate the resin. A 5-ml aliquot was centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 15 min, and 3 ml transferred to separate glass tubes. One ml of the supernatant of each sample was determined the monomer concentration by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (Shimadzu 20A Prominence HPLC, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) using a reverse-phase LC-18 (5-μm particle diameter, 46-mm internal diameter x 150-mm length) analytical column. For the mobile phase, a solution of methanol-water (66:34 volume ratio) was used, with a 1.5 ml/min flow rate and a 205 nm UV detection wavelength.

Residual monomer determination

The amount of residual MMA was determined from a standard calibration curve (R2 > 0.99) that was prepared by plotting the peaks of known amounts of MMA (approximately 6 mg, 60 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg, and 400 mg). The standard curve was used to determine the concentration in micrograms of MMA, cMMA, per milliliter of analyzed sample solution.

The standard calibration curve was calculated from known concentrations of MMA solution, which had the following equation (R2 > 0.99):

f(x) = (2.67923*107)x + 454489

Where f(x) = absorbance area of MMA by UV detector and x = MMA concentration

The total quantity of MMA in the sample solution, mMMA, in micrograms, was calculated according to the following equation:

where * is the tetrahydrofurane volume (ml) and ** is the methanol volume (ml) used for extraction.

The RM (%mg) was calculated using the following equation:

Each specimen that was divided into three solutions (nine solutions in total) was tested for pass/fail determination of RM. The three solutions per sample were averaged to generate the representative value of each specimen. Therefore, six values were obtained for each experimental group. The data were analyzed with a one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s post hoc test at the 95% confidence level (P < 0.05) by the SPSS 17.0 software program (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

Results

In the present study, we analyzed the LRM in orthodontic base polymers following the ISO method for the determination of RM. The three specimens that were divided into nine solutions were tested for pass/fail determination of RM, which is defined in ISO 20795-2 (2013). The maximum allowable RM is 5.0 mg%. Our results indicated that all groups passed this requirement [23].

The results revealed statistically significant differences in the LRM after the different treatment methods (Table 2). The highest LRM was found in the OC I group, while the OC VIII group showed the lowest LRM.

Table 2.Means (wt%) and standard deviations of residual monomer concentration (n = 6)

Group

Treatment

Orthocryl (OC)

(n=6)

Orthoplast (OP)

(n=6)

I

Control

3.31±0.18a

3.27±0.10a

Water, 25°C

II

24 h

2.31±0.13e,f

3.06±0.09a,b

III

72 h

2.34±0.11e,f

2.75±0.04c,d

Ultrasonic bath, 50°C

IV

3 min

2.70±0.22d

3.08±0.06a,b

V

5 min

2.78±0.17c,d

3.14±0.03a,b

VI

10 min

2.42±0.13e

2.98±0.10b,c

VII

15 min

2.10±0.20f,g

2.73±0.13c,d

VIII

20 min

2.04±0.08g

2.56±0.08d,e

Means with the same lowercase letter are not significantly different at P< 0.05 by a one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD post hoc test.

According to a one-way ANOVA (Table 2), the LRM in OC II-VIII groups were significantly lower than that in the OC I (P < 0.001). The LRM in OC VIII group was significantly lower than those in the OC II and OC III (P = 0.034 and P = 0.011). The LRM in OC VI and OC VII groups were not significantly different from those in the OC II (P = 0.986 and P = 0.209) and OC III (P = 0.999 and P = 0.088), but the LRM in OC VII group was significantly lower than that in the OC VI (P = 0.003).

In the OP groups (Table 2), no significant difference existed between OP I and OP II groups (P = 0.241), but the LRM in OP III group was significantly lower than that in the OP I (P < 0.001). The LRM in OP VI-VIII groups were not significantly different from that in the OP III (P = 0.124, P = 1.000 and P = 0.430).

In the same treatment method, the OC samples had statistically significantly lower LRM than the OP samples (P < 0.001).

Discussion

Among the orthodontic literature, few studies have examined methods of reducing the LRM in orthodontic acrylic base-plate [24-26]. Consequently, this study investigated the effect of water immersion in an ultrasonic bath on the LRM in two different orthodontic acrylic resins.

High performance liquid chromatography, which is a well-established method for the determination of RM in dental acrylic resins [27-29], is non-destructive, enables simultaneous analysis of various substances, and provides correct estimates of the LRM in acrylic resin [30]. The HPLC was thus used in this study to determine the LRM.

The adverse effects of RM are patient allergy and its effect on physical properties of the acrylic. Orthodontic acrylic resins can cause toxic reactions in permanent cultures of fibroblasts and keratinocytes [31]. Moreover, Gonçalves et al reported an allergic reaction to MMA self-curing acrylic resin during an orthodontic treatment in a 60-year-old woman patient, after an orthodontic retainer had been inserted. A localized hypersensitive reaction on the palate, hypersalivation, a bitter taste in the mouth, and difficulty swallowing were reported [9].

The LRM in acrylic resin is also related to its physical properties. Dogan, et al. found a positive correlation between water sorption and RM. The RM can cause voids in acrylic resin, and when it leaches out, water molecules can penetrate the void and act as a plasticizer by pushing the polymer chains further apart [32]. Consequently, the secondary chemical bonding forces (van der Waals forces) between the polymer chains decrease, resulting in a reduction in physical properties. Other studies have demonstrated that physical properties are improved when the LRM is reduced [33,34].

According to ISO 20795-2, the LRM of orthodontic base polymers should not exceed 5 wt% [23]. In this study, each specimen complied with this requirement. Despite the fact that ISO 1567 was mentioned as a reference [35], LRM was limited to 4.5 wt% for self-curing acrylic resins. Harrison and Hugget referred to the British Standard Institute specification for self-curing orthodontic resin, which requires a 3.5 wt% limit for the LRM [36]. However, Gonçalves et al reported an allergic reaction to the self-curing acrylic resin of an orthodontic retainer base plate [9], although the LRM (~0.75 wt%) were below the limits specified in product standards. Therefore, it is desirable to reduce the LRM in acrylic resin to as low a level as possible, prior to insertion into the patient’s mouth.

The LRM in OC were significantly lower than those in OP after the same monomer elution protocol. This may be an influence of the particle size and the polymeric composition of the powder, as well as each brand’s concentration of initiator and accelerator. The particle size of polymer resin influences the amount of monomer remaining in the polymer, and increasing amounts of accelerator in the liquid will tend to decrease the LRM after polymerization [24].

In the OC group, statistical analysis revealed that the LRM after water immersion at room temperature for 24 and 72 h were significantly less than that of the control group. These results were consistent with those reported by Stafford and Brook, in that the RM is lost rapidly in the first 24 h of water immersion [24]. The LRM in the orthodontic resins falls over time by two mechanisms: the continued polymerization of the monomer, and the leaching out of the monomer [37].

The LRM in OC IV-VIII groups were significantly lower than that in the OC I (P < 0.001). The LRM after water immersion at 50°C in an ultrasonic bath was reduced, probably because of the microscopic jets of liquid produced by the cavitation. The jets were able to enhance the leaching out of RM from the surface of specimen. Moreover, immersion in hot water (50°C) promoted a more rapid diffusion of RM into water and increased polymerization at the sites of active radicals [27,38].

The LRM of autopolymerized acrylic resins could be reduced by immersion in water for 24 h before usage [17,24], but a prolonged period is needed. On the other hand, immersion in an ultrasonic water bath needs less time to reduce the LRM in orthodontic base-plate materials. Therefore, the LRM in the orthodontic base-plate materials should be reduced by water immersion at 50°C in an ultrasonic bath for 10-20 min before delivery to the patients, when repairing and delivering an orthodontic appliance within a clinical visit.

Ultrasonic treatment with 50oC water may affect the amount of residual monomer in two ways. First, enhanced residual monomer reduction has been attributed to the propagation of ultrasound pressure and cavitation. The implosion of cavitation bubbles generates macro-turbulence, high-velocity inter-particle collisions, and perturbation in acrylic resin micro-pores, which accelerates the eddy diffusion and internal diffusion of monomer [22]. Second, the increased water temperature increased the mobility of the monomer molecules leading to increased number of polymerized polymer chains and may result in higher monomer conversion compared with the untreated group. Future studies should focus on the elution of residual monomer into the environment coupled with the comparison of the degree of conversion before and after ultrasonic treatment. The properties of the acrylic resin, determined in ISO 20795-2, should also be investigated.

Conclusions

Using the same monomer elution method, the LRM in OC was lower than that in OP. Water immersion at 50°C in an ultrasonic bath for 10-20 min reduced the LRM in both MMA-based orthodontic base-plate materials, which was similar to or better than water immersion at room temperature for 24 and 72 h. However, less time was required. The results revealed a convenient reduction of the residual monomer within a short period of time in the clinical practice.

Author contribution

Dr. Pajima Thaitammayanon participated in the literature search, laboratory work, data collection and manuscript drafting. Assoc. Prof. Chintana Sirichompun contributed to the idea and design of the study protocol, coordinated the research project and revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. Assoc. Prof. Chairat Wiwatwarrapan contributed to the idea and design of the study protocol, performed the statistical analysis and revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to Dr. Kevin Tompkins for his valuable commentary on the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund of Chulalongkorn University (RES560530265-AS).

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this 

References

  1. Faltermeier A, Rosentritt M, Müssig D (2007) Acrylic removable appliances: Comparative evaluation of different postpolymerization methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop131:301.e16-e22. [Crossref]
  2. Littlewood SJ, Tait AG, Mandall NA, Lewis DH (2001) The role of removable appliances in contemporary orthodontics. Br Dent J 191: 304-306, 309-10.[Crossref]
  3. Adams CP, Kerr WJS, Adams CP (1990) The design, construction, and use of removable orthodontic appliances. 6th edn. London: Butterworth-Heinemann:198.
  4. Roberts-Harry D, Sandy J (2004) Orthodontics. Part 5: Appliance choices. Br Dent J 196: 9-18.[Crossref]
  5. Bass NM (1983) Removable orthodontic appliance. Br Dent J 154: 281.[Crossref]
  6. Anusavice KJ, Phillips RW (2003) Phillips' science of dental materials 11th edn. St. Louis: Saunders:106-110.
  7. Zissis A, Yannikakis S, Polyzois G, Harrison A (2008) A long term study on residual monomer release from denture materials. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent16:81-84.[Crossref]
  8. Kedjarune U1, Charoenworaluk N, Koontongkaew S (1999) Release of methyl methacrylate from heat-cured and autopolymerized resins: cytotoxicity testing related to residual monomer. Aust Dent J 44: 25-30.[Crossref]
  9. Gonçalves TS, Morganti MA, Campos LC, Rizzatto SM, Menezes LM (2006) Allergy to auto-polymerized acrylic resin in an orthodontic patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 129:431-435. [Crossref]
  10. Ruiz-Genao DP, Moreno de Vega MJ, Sanchez Perez J, García-Díez A (2003) Labial edema due to an acrylic dental prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis48:273-274. [Crossref]
  11. Lunder T, Rogl-Butina M (2000) Chronic urticaria from an acrylic dental prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis 43: 232-233.[Crossref]
  12. Gosavi SS, Gosavi SY, Alla RK (2010) Local and systemic effects of unpolymerised monomers. Dent Res J (Isfahan)7: 82-87.[Crossref]
  13. Chaves CA, Machado AL, Vergani CE, de Souza RF, Giampaolo ET (2012) Cytotoxicity of denture base and hard chairside reline materials: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent107:114-127. [Crossref]
  14. Giunta J, Zablotsky N (1976) Allergic stomatitis caused by self-polymerizing resin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 41:631-637. [Crossref]
  15. Rose EC, Bumann J, Jonas IE, Kappert HF (2000) Contribution to the biological assessment of orthodontic acrylic materials. Measurement of their residual monomer output and cytotoxicity. J Orofac Orthop61:246-257. [Crossref]
  16. Jorge JH, Giampaolo ET, Machado AL, Vergani CE (2003) Cytotoxicity of denture base acrylic resins: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 90: 190-193.[Crossref]
  17. Baker S, Brooks SC, Walker DM (1988) The release of residual monomeric methyl methacrylate from acrylic appliances in the human mouth: an assay for monomer in saliva. J Dent Res67:1295-1299. [Crossref]
  18. Tsuchiya H, Hoshino Y, Tajima K, Takagi N (1994) Leaching and cytotoxicity of formaldehyde and methyl methacrylate from acrylic resin denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 71: 618-624.[Crossref]
  19. Kulkarni VM, Rathod VK (2014) Mapping of an ultrasonic bath for ultrasound assisted extraction of mangiferin from Mangifera indica leaves. Ultrason Sonochem21:606-611.
  20. Stanisavljevic IT, Lazic ML, Veljkovic VB (2007) Ultrasonic extraction of oil from tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) seeds. Ultrason Sonochem14:646-652. [Crossref]
  21. Feng S, Luo Z, Tao B, et al. (2015) Ultrasonic-assisted extraction and purification of phenolic compounds from sugarcane (Saccharum of?cinarum L.) rinds. LWT - Food Science and Technology60:970-976.
  22. Charasseangpaisarn T, Wiwatwarrapan C (2015) The effect of various frequencies of ultrasonic cleaner in reducing residual monomer in acrylic resin. Ultrasonics63:163-167.[Crossref]
  23. International Organization for Standardization (2013) ISO 20795–2: Dentistry – Base polymers. Part 2: Orthodontic base polymers. Geneva: ISO. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/62279.html [Accessed September 30, 2017].
  24. Stafford GD, Brooks SC (1985) The loss of residual monomer from acrylic orthodontic resins. Dent Mater1:135-138. [Crossref]
  25. Goncalves TS, de Menezes LM, Silva LE (2008) Residual monomer of autopolymerized acrylic resin according to different manipulation and polishing methods. An in situ evaluation. Angle Orthod78:722-727. [Crossref]
  26. Iça RB, Öztürk F, Ates B, Malkoc MA, Kelestemur Ü (2014) Level of residual monomer released from orthodontic acrylic materials. Angle Orthod 84: 862-867.[Crossref]
  27. Vallittu PK, Miettinen V, Alakuijala P (1995) Residual monomer content and its release into water from denture base materials. Dent Mater11:338-342.[Crossref]
  28. Shim JS, Watts DC (1999) Residual monomer concentrations in denture-base acrylic resin after an additional, soft-liner, heat-cure cycle. Dent Mater 15: 296-300.[Crossref]
  29. Vallittu PK (1996) The effect of surface treatment of denture acrylic resin on the residual monomer content and its release into water. Acta Odontol Scand54:1881-1892. [Crossref]
  30. Urban VM, Cass QB, Oliveira RV, Giampaolo ET, Machado AL (2006) Development and application of methods for determination of residual monomer in dental acrylic resins using high performance liquid chromatography. Biomed Chromatogr20:369-376. [Crossref]
  31. Schendel KU, Lenhardt M, Fusenig NE, Komposch G (1992) The testing of the toxicity of the plastics used in orthodontics. Fortschr Kieferorthop 53: 263-272.[Crossref]
  32. Dogan A, Bek B, Cevik NN, Usanmaz A (1995) The effect of preparation conditions of acrylic denture base materials on the level of residual monomer, mechanical properties and water absorption. J Dent23:313-318.[Crossref]
  33. Urban VM, Machado AL, Vergani CE, Giampaolo ET, Pavarina AC, et al. (2009) Effect of water-bath post-polymerization on the mechanical properties, degree of conversion, and leaching of residual compounds of hard chairside reline resins. Dent Mater25:662-671.[Crossref]
  34. Patil PS, Chowdhary R, Mandokar RB (2009) Effect of microwave postpolymerization treatment on residual monomer content and the flexural strength of autopolymerizing reline resin. Indian J Dent Res20:293-297.[Crossref]
  35. Yilmaz H, Aydin C, Caglar A, Yasar A (2003) The effect of glass fiber reinforcement on the residual monomer content of two denture base resins. Quintessence Int34:148-153. [Crossref]
  36. Harrison A, Huggett R (1992) Effect of the curing cycle on residual monomer levels of acrylic resin denture base polymers. J Dent20:370-374. [Crossref]
  37. Lamb DJ, Ellis B, Priestley D (1983) The effects of process variables on levels of residual monomer in autopolymerizing dental acrylic resin. J Dent11:80-88. [Crossref]
  38. Lamb DJ, Ellis B, Priestley D (1982) Loss into water of residual monomer from autopolymerizing dental acrylic resin. Biomaterials 3: 155-159.[Crossref]

Editorial Information

Editor-in-Chief

Shigeru Watanabe
Meikai University

Article Type

Research Article

Publication history

Received: January 02, 2018
Accepted: January 17, 2018
Published: January 19, 2018

Copyright

C2018Sirichompun C.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Citation

Thaitammayanon P, Sirichompun C, Wiwatwarrapan C(2018)Ultrasonic treatment reduced residual monomer in methyl methacrylate-based orthodontic base-plate materials.Dent Oral Craniofac Res 4: DOI: 10.15761/DOCR.1000251

Corresponding author

Chintana Sirichompun

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Henri-Dunant Road, Pathumwan Bangkok 10330, Thailand, Tel. +66 81 614 5548; Fax: +66 2 218 8953

Table 1.Chemical composition of MMA-based orthodontic base-plate materials

Brand

Components

Composition

Manufacturer

Batch number

Orthocryl

(OC)

Powder

Polymethyl methacrylate

Dentaurum, Ispringen,Germany

98210600

Liquid

Methyl methacrylate,

methyl acrylate,

methyl isobutyrate>90%;

ethylene dimethacrylate<10%;

2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-p-cresol <1%

91839501

Orthoplast

(OP)

Powder

Polymethyl methacrylate >99%, accelerator <1%,

color agents <1%

Vertex, Zeist,

The Netherlands

B4-957

Liquid

Methyl methacrylate >95%,

ethyleneglycoldimethacrylate<5%

14003860

Table 2.Means (wt%) and standard deviations of residual monomer concentration (n = 6)

Group

Treatment

Orthocryl (OC)

(n=6)

Orthoplast (OP)

(n=6)

I

Control

3.31±0.18a

3.27±0.10a

Water, 25°C

II

24 h

2.31±0.13e,f

3.06±0.09a,b

III

72 h

2.34±0.11e,f

2.75±0.04c,d

Ultrasonic bath, 50°C

IV

3 min

2.70±0.22d

3.08±0.06a,b

V

5 min

2.78±0.17c,d

3.14±0.03a,b

VI

10 min

2.42±0.13e

2.98±0.10b,c

VII

15 min

2.10±0.20f,g

2.73±0.13c,d

VIII

20 min

2.04±0.08g

2.56±0.08d,e

Means with the same lowercase letter are not significantly different at P< 0.05 by a one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD post hoc test.