Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41832480›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2026

Hydrophobic monomer systems for dental composites: development and physicochemical evaluation of UDMA/IBOMA formulations.

Shaiva Thakar, Marc Hayashi, Zaher Jabbour, Reuben Kim, Shahed Al Khalifah, Deukwon Jo, Mijoo Kim

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shaiva ThakarUCLA Biomaterials and Device Testing Laboratory, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Marc HayashiUCLA Biomaterials and Device Testing Laboratory, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Zaher JabbourUCLA Biomaterials and Device Testing Laboratory, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Reuben KimUCLA Biomaterials and Device Testing Laboratory, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Shahed Al KhalifahUCLA Biomaterials and Device Testing Laboratory, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Deukwon JoUCLA Biomaterials and Device Testing Laboratory, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Mijoo KimUCLA Biomaterials and Device Testing Laboratory, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. mijookim@dentistry.ucla.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate UDMA/IBOMA formulations at varying ratios as hydrophobic alternatives to conventional Bis-GMA/TEGDMA dental resin composites, assessing hydrophobic properties, polymerization efficiency, mechanical performance, water sorption behavior, and color stability.

methodsA total of 120 disc specimens (15 mm × 1 mm) were prepared in four groups (n = 40): Group 1 (control) containing Bis-GMA: TEGDMA (70:30 wt%), and Groups 2–4 containing UDMA: IBOMA at 50:50, 60:40, and 70:30 wt%, respectively. The photoinitiators of 0.5 wt% Camphorquinone and 0.5 wt% Ethyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate were added to each group. Specimens were evaluated for contact angle, surface free energy, degree of conversion (FTIR), Vickers microhardness, water sorption, and color stability (ΔE after 28-day immersion in coffee and turmeric). Data were analyzed using one-way and two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test (α = 0.05).

resultsAll UDMA/IBOMA formulations exhibited significantly higher water contact angles (> 90°) and lower surface free energy than the control (p < 0.05). The degree of conversion showed no significant differences. Microhardness was comparable in Groups 2 and 3 but reduced in Group 4 (p < 0.05). Water sorption decreased progressively with increasing IBOMA content, with Group 4 demonstrating 71% reduction versus control (p < 0.05). UDMA/IBOMA formulations showed higher apparent staining for both solutions, primarily due to lighter baseline colors.

conclusionsThe 70:30 UDMA/IBOMA formulation demonstrated superior water uptake resistance, representing significant advancement toward durable, BPA-free restorative materials with greatest potential for long-term clinical performance.

Indexed as

Composite ResinsDental MaterialsMethacrylatesPolyurethanes4-Aminobenzoic AcidBisphenol A-Glycidyl MethacrylateCamphorColorHardnessHumansHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsMaterials Testingpara-AminobenzoatesPhotoinitiators, DentalPolyethylene GlycolsPolymerization4-Aminobenzoic AcidBisphenol A-Glycidyl MethacrylateCamphorcamphorquinoneComposite ResinsDental Materialsethyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoateethyl 4-N,N-dimethylaminobenzoateMethacrylatespara-AminobenzoatesPhotoinitiators, DentalPolyethylene GlycolsPolymethacrylic AcidsPolyurethanesTerpenestriethylene glycol dimethacrylateurethane dimethacrylate luting resinWaterBis-GMAContact angleDental resin compositeHydrophobicityIBOMARestorative dentistryTEGDMAUDMAWater sorption

Identifiers

PMID41832480
PMCPMC13101269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.