, 

Introduction of wettability
Measure of the affinity of a liquid for a solid as indicated by spreading of
a drop . Observed by shape of the drop of liquid on the solid surface the
Flatter the shape of drop indicates more wetting .It is difficult to force
two solid surfaces to adhere Regardless of how smooth these surfaces
may appear, they are likely to be extremely rough when viewed on an
atomic or molecular scale. Consequently, when they are placed in
apposition, only the "peaks" or asperities are in contact. Because these
areas usually constitute only a small percentage of the total surface area,
no perceptible adhesion take place. The attraction is generally negligible
when the surface molecules of the attracting sub-stances are separated by
distances greater than 0.7 nm (0.0007 pm). One method of overcoming
this difficulty is to use a fluid that flows into these irregularities to
provide contact over a greater part of the surface of the solid. For
example, when two polished glass plates are placed one on top of the
other and are pressed together, they exhibit little tendency to adhere for
reasons previously described. however, if a film of water is introduced
between them, considerable difficulty is encountered in separating the
two plates The surface energy of the glass is sufficiently great to attract
the molecules of water .
To produce adhesion in this manner, the liquid must flow easily over the
entire surface
Supervied and adherend
by / Dr. saadi sharshab to the solid this characteristic is known as
wetting. If the liquid does not wet the surface of the adherend, adhesion
between the liquid and the adhelend will be negligible 01 nonexistent. If
there is a true wetting of the surface, adhesion failures should not occur
Failure in such instances actually occurs cohesively in the solid 01 in the
adhesive itself, not along the interface where the solid and adhesive are in
contact.
The ability of an adhesive to wet the surface of the adherend is influenced
by a number of factors The cleanliness of the surface is of particular
importance. A film of water only one molecule thick on the surface of the
solid may lower the surface energy of the adherend and prevent any
wetting by the adhesive Likewise, an oily film on a metallic surface may
also inhibit the contact of an adhesive .
The surfaceenergy of some substances is so low that few, if any,
liquidswet their surfaces. Some organic substances, such as dental waxes,
are of this type. Close packing of the structural organic groups and the
presence of halogens may prevent wetting .
Teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene), a commercial synthetic resin, is often
used when it is desirable to prevent the adhesion of films to a surface
Metals, on the other hand, interact strongly with liquid adhesives because
of their high surface energy. In general, the comparatively low surface
energies of organic and most inorganic liquids permit them to spread
freely on solids of high surface energy. Formation of a strong adhesive
joint requies good wetting .

Contact angle of wetting

The extend to which an adhesive wets the surface of an adherentmay be

determined by measuring the contact angle between the adhesive and the
adhered. The contact angle is the angle formed at the interface of the
adhesive and the adherent . It the molecules of the adhesive air attracted
to the molecules of the adherent as much as, 0r more than, they are
attracted tothemselves, the liquid adhesive will spread completely over
the surface of the solid, and no contact angle (0 = 0 degrees) will be
formed (fig 2-16, A) Thus the forces of adhesion are stronger than the
cohesive forces holding the molecules of the adhesive together. A dental
material such as an elastomeric impression may not be ideal for
replicating hard or soft oral tissues if an aqueous medium with a contact
angle of greater than 90" is poured into this rubbertype mold. Under this
condition the impression material is considered to be hydrophobic to
improve the wetting of the impression by an aqueous solution of a
gypsum-forming model material, the manufacturer could change the
formulation to render the material more hydrophilic or a wetting agent
could be added to the aqueous gypsum-forming mixture. However, if the
energy of the adherent surface is reduced slightly by contamination or
other means, the surface tension of the solid ((ySv)) decreases and a
slight Increase in the contact angle (0) can bemeasured (Fig. 2-16, B).
This increase in 0 retains the force balance shown in fig 2-16, D. Note
that as 0 increases from 0 to 90 degrees, the value of cos 0 deceases from
I to 0. If a monolayer film of acontaminant is presentover the entire
surface,
A medium angle might be obtained, where's a very high angle would
result on a solid of low surface energy (ySv), such as
polyletrafluooethylene (fig. 2 -16, C). Because the tendency for the
liquid to spread increases as the contact angle decreases, the contact
angle is a useful indicator of spreadability or wettability (Fig. 2-16, D).
Complete wetting occurs at a contact angle of 0", and no wetting occurs
at an angle of 180".
Thus the smaller the contact angle between an adhesive and an adherent,
the better the ability of the adhesive to flow into and fill in irregularities
within the surface of the adherent. The fluidity of the adhesive influences
the extent to which these voids or irregularitiesare filled.
Solid "flat" surfaces are not actually planar. Surface imperfections
represent a potential impediment to the achievement of an adhesive bond.
Air pockets may be created during the spreading of the adhesive that
prevent complete wetting of the entire surface (Fig . 2-17). When the
adhesive interfacial region is subjected to thermal changes and
mechanical stresses, stress concentrations develop around these voids The
stress may become so great that it initiates a separationin the adhesive
bond adjacent to the void. This crack may propagate from one void to the
next, and the joint may separate under stress.
Regarding the contact angle values identified in the scientific literature
for the types of materials analyzed in this research, the studies are few
and the results are not uniform. Besides, most of them analyze
commercial products that are mostly different from those in our study.
That is why we can say that the differences between the values we found
can be associated also with the presence of different commercial
products. Hilgenberg, in a study on self cure hard acrylic materials, got
values of contact angle close to those in our study (63.3 -68.3 ) [14]. Jin,
analyzing the materials used for relining finds values of

contact angle about 10 lower for heat cured acrylics (75.356 ) and 10
higher for soft acrylic materials (85.625 ) [15]. Nishoka gives values
between 68.7 and 77.4 for the polished heat cured acrylics (commercial
product ACRON, GC, Tokyo, Japan). But the process of polishing, as the
author himself underlines, in case of acrylic resins decreases the rugosity
and consequently the contact angle decreases [16]. Zeiss, testing the
materials used for dentures’ base and relining, finds lower values of the
contact angle for the soft acrylates (59.9 - 69.9 ) and higher for the hard
ones (71.8 - 77.3 ). From the self cure hard materials, there were chosen
two, wetting values being intermediate to the heat cured materials from
our study (73.4 and 75 ) [17]. In another study, Zissisfinds

values of the contact angle of the soft materials for relining lower than of
the hard ones [18]. Watter also finds acrylic materials as having a better
wettability than the siliconeones [19]. Satou finds for chemically cured
composite resins based on Bis-GMA values of 64.4°-65.9° [20]. Namen
find for light cured resins contact angles of 79and 71 [21]. Moshvarenia
finds for GC Fuji IX, self cure cement, a close value (57 ) as ours for GC
Fuji PLUS, the two materials belonging to the same producer [22]. In a
study made by Namen on light cured materials of this type, the values of
the contact angle are much higher [21]. Taking into account the great
variety of commercial products existing, in the future we plan to analyze
more commercial products belonging to the same type ofmaterial by the
contact angle method, to see if similar
behavior can be observed. Also, this feature should be tested after a
period of time after the samples are introduced in the artificial saliva, to
create similar condition to the oral environment.
References

1- Journal of Biomechanics, volume 40 ، Issue 3 , 2007 page

(697- 701) Charles Laroche, Alan Bars , Hui Dong,David
Remple.
2- Ceramics international, volume 44, Issue 4 , March
2018Page 4307-4312 Mohammad TahaMarefati, Ali
Mohammad
Hadian, TabassomHooshmand, BijanEftekhariYekta, Razieh
Koohkan

3- Phillips' science of dental materials / [edited by] Kenneth J.

Anusavice; selected artwork by Jose dosSantos Jr. - 11th
ed 2003. Printed in China Last digit is the print number: 9
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .page 36- 40 .
4- E. Preoteasa, M. Melescanu-Imre, C. T. Preoteasa, M.
Marin, H. Lerner, Romanian Journal of Morphology and
Embryology. 51(2), 309 (2010).