Enhanced anti-bacterial adhesion effect of FDMA/SR833s based dental resin composites by using 1H,1H-heptafluorobutyl methacrylate as partial diluent

Figures & data

Figure 1. Structures of DFMA, SR833s, and FBMA.

Table 1. Components of the resin matrix for each dental resin composite

DRCs	Components (g)
	Bis-GMA	TEGDMA	DFMA	SR833s	FBMA	CQ	DMAEMA
BT	49.3	49.3	0	0	0	0.7	0.7
DS	0	0	49.3	49.3	0	0.7	0.7
DSF-1	0	0	49.3	39.44	9.86	0.7	0.7
DSF-2	0	0	49.3	29.58	19.72	0.7	0.7
DSF-3	0	0	49.3	19.72	29.58	0.7	0.7

Figure 2. The fracture section morphology of DRCs. (A) BT; (B) DS; (C) DSF-1; (D) DSF-2; (E) DSF-3.

Table 2. Results of double bond conversion (DC), volumetric shrinkage (VS), and shrinkage stress (SS) of DRCs

DRCs	Properties
	DC (%)	VS (%)	SS (MPa)
BT	54.1 ± 1.3^a	5.30 ± 0.04^a	3.20 ± 0.25^a
DS	52.7 ± 3.2^a	4.42 ± 0.19^b	2.09 ± 0.12^b
DSF-1	53.7 ± 3.6^a	4.55 ± 0.18^b	2.00 ± 0.18^b
DSF-2	51.2 ± 3.1^a	4.04 ± 0.05^c	1.61 ± 0.25^c
DSF-3	51.4 ± 3.3^a	3.55 ± 0.37^d	1.48 ± 0.25^c

^a Identical lower-case letters indicate no statistical difference between values within a column (p = 0.05)

Table 3. Results of contact angle and surface free energy of DRCs

DRCs	Contact angle (º)		Surface free energy (mN/m)
	water	diiodomethane
BT	56.1 ± 3.1^a	19.3 ± 3.5^a	52.9 ± 1.4^a
DS	99.2 ± 3.2^b	36.9 ± 1.5^b	44.6 ± 1.6^b
DSF-1	105.6 ± 2.9^c	44.1 ± 0.8^c	42.4 ± 1.4^c
DSF-2	113.3 ± 2.8^d	52.4 ± 1.2^d	39.6 ± 1.2^d
DSF-3	117.9 ± 1.9^d	62.6 ± 1.5^e	32.9 ± 1.2^e

^a Identical lower-case letters indicate no statistical difference between values within a column (p = 0.05)

Figure 3. The amounts of S. mutans recovered from the surface of dental resin composites. Identical lower-case letters indicate that there was no significant difference in the amounts of S. mutans between the different groups (p = 0.05).

Figure 4. The results of flexural strength (A) and modulus (B) before and after water immersion of dental resin composites. Identical lower-case letters indicate that there was no significant difference in flexural strength or modulus between the different groups before water immersion (p = 0.05), while identical upper-case letters indicate that there was no significant difference in flexural strength or modulus between the different groups after water immersion (p = 0.05).

Figure 5. The water sorption and solubility of dental resin composites. Identical lower-case letters indicate that there was no significant difference in water sorption between the different groups (p = 0.05), while identical upper-case letter indicate that there was no significant difference in water solubility between the different groups (p = 0.05).