English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Solvents should be properly evaporated after application to dental substrates. The aim of this study was to assess the evaporation of commercial, experimental and neat solvents. The tested null hypotheses were that there are no differences in solvent evaporation regardless of its formulation and over time. Evaporation from commercial adhesive systems (Scotchbond Multipurpose Primer, Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive, Prime &amp; Bond NT, Multi Bond, Excite, Single Bond 2, Adhese Primer, Adhese Bond, Xeno III A and Xeno III B) and experimental primers (35% HEMA plus 65% acetone or ethanol or water v/v) were compared to neat solvents (acetone, ethanol and water). Samples (10 microL) of these products were dripped into glass containers placed on a digital precision balance. Evaporation was assessed at 0, 5, 10, 15, 30, 60, 120, 300 and 600 s times to calculate mass loss. Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Bonferroni's correction (a=0.05). Acetone-based products exhibited a remarkable capacity to evaporate spontaneously over time. Neat acetone evaporated significantly more than the HEMA-mixtures and the commercial formulations (p&lt;0.05). The incorporation of monomers and other ingredients in the commercial formulations seem to reduce the evaporation capacity. Solvent evaporation was time and material-dependent.

In vitro assessment of solvent evaporation from commercial adhesive systems compared to experimental systems