Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 42, Issue 10, pp 3632–3644 | Cite as

Mechanical properties and rheology of polyalkenoate cements using various low-cost fillers

  • Diego A. Acosta
  • Gary P. Funkhouser
  • Brain P. GradyEmail author


Low-cost polyalkenoate cements analogous to dental cements, i.e., cements based on polymers of acrylic acid crosslinked via bridging metal cations, were developed with a goal of producing a more flexible alternative to Portland cement. Economic constraints necessitated the replacement of the acid-degradable glass normally used in dental cements; the purpose of the glass is to provide both a source of polyvalent cations for crosslinking and solid filler for a composite material. The dual functionality of the powdered glass was accomplished via the use of manganese tetraoxide as the filler and aluminum chloride as the cation source for the ionic crosslinks. Unlike dental cements that have a gel-like consistency before setting, low viscosity cements were produced by using acrylic acid monomer rather than low-molecular weight poly(acrylic acid). Mechanical and rheological properties were used to monitor cement characteristics. Because of the large number of formulation variables, a design of experiments (DOE) approach was used. DOE helped narrow the search for formulations that would result in hardened cements and find the optimal set of ingredients that led to cements with the best properties given the economic constraints on the ingredients. Rheology was adjusted to match that of Portland cement by altering the filler volume fraction, which was very effective since the rheology depended strongly on that variable. The most pertinent independent variables for the mechanical properties were the curing time and monomer/cation ratio in the ranges tested; however, the monomer/water ratio was fixed at the minimum level possible and not increased because of economic considerations. The best materials produced in terms of mechanical properties resulted when acrylic acid monomer was partially replaced by N,N′-methylenebisacrylamide; this substitution resulted in a stronger and tougher cement.


Failure Strain Compressive Modulus Glass Ionomer Cement Plastic Viscosity Maximum Compressive Stress 


  1. 1.
    Hse KMY, Leung SK, Wei SHY (1999) Aust Dent J 44:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Bruyne MAA, De Moor RJG (2004) Int Endo J 37:91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Culbertson BM (2001) Prog Polym Sci 26:577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mccabe JF (1998) Biomaterials 19:521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kenny SM, Buggy M (2003) J Mater Sci Mater Med 14:923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walls AWG, Mccabe JF, Murray JJ (1988) J Dent 16:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kenny S, Hill RG, Towler M (2000) J Mater Sci Mater Med 11:847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Towler MR, Crowley CM, Murphy D, O’Callaghan AMC (2002) J Mater Sci Lett 21:1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sullivan A, Hill R (2000) J Mater Sci 35:1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vargas G, Rivera H, Lopez J, Mendez J, Mendez M, Romero J (2002) Bol Soc Esp Ceram V 41:405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fennell B, Hill RG (2001) J Mater Sci 36:5193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fennell B, Hill RG (2001) J Mater Sci 36:5177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fennell B, Hill RG (2001) J Mater Sci 36:5185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fong H (2004) J Appl Polymer Sci 94:492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kleverlaan CJ, Van Duinen RNB, Feilzer AJ (2004) Dent Mater 20:45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deb S, Shah P, Vazquez B, San Roman J (2003) J Mater Sci Mater Med 14:575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kenny S, Buggy M, Hill RG (2001) J Mater Sci Mater Med 12:901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xie D, Feng D, Chung I, Eberhardt AW (2003) Biomaterials 24:2749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sullivan A, Hill RG, Waters K (2000) J Mater Sci Lett 19:325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Braybrook JH, Nicholson JW (1993) J Mater Chem 3:361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith DK (1990) Cementing. H.L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME, Society of Petroleum Engineers, New York City, p 254Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zdanowski RE, Brown GL, Larsson BE (1963) US PAT. 3085907, p 6Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peters J, Meyer VE (1979) US PAT. 4151150, p 5Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wahl WW, Dever CD (1964) US PAT. 3140269, p 5Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dickson JT, Silber MH (1969) BRIT PAT. 1150376, p 8Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rocak D, Kosec M, Degen A (2002) J Eur Ceram Soc 22:391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Srinivasan CB, Narasimhan N, Lakshmi N, Ilango SV (2003) Cement Concr Res 33:1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Box GEP, Hunter JS, Hunter WG (1978) Statistics for experimenters, an introduction to design, data analysis and model building. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Hoboken, p 653Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nishibayashi S, Yoshino A (1997) Superplasticizers and other chemical admixtures in concrete SP-173. American Concrete Institute, pp 343–357Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Usui H, Li L, Kinoshita S, Suzuki H (2001) J Chem Eng Jpn 34:360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Park HC, Yoon SY, Lee YB, Kim BK, Stevens R (2002) J Mater Synth Process 10:237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A (2003) Dent Mater 19:620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mitchell CA, Douglas WH, Cheng YS (1999) Dent Mater 15:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mitsihashi A, Hanaoka K, Teranaka T (2003) Dent Mater 19:747CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diego A. Acosta
    • 1
  • Gary P. Funkhouser
    • 2
  • Brain P. Grady
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Chemical, Biological and Materials EngineeringUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.HalliburtonDuncanUSA

Personalised recommendations