scholarly journals Evaluation of Different Light-Curing Units—Light-Emitting Diodes and Quartz–Tungsten–Halogen-Based Light-Curing Units in Polymerization of Posterior Composite: An In Vitro Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (02/03) ◽  
pp. 060-064
Author(s):  
R. Bansal ◽  
M. Bansal ◽  
S. Walia ◽  
C. Gupta ◽  
L. Bansal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Hardness Test ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Halogen Lamp ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Quartz Tungsten Halogen ◽  
Light Curing

Abstract Objective To assess the adequacy of various light-curing units to polymerize the posterior composite resin. Materials and Methods Specimens were prepared by placing a single increment of posterior composite resin in split cylindrical metallic mold of dimension (6.0 mm in diameter and 5 mm in depth). Polymerization was done by utilizing one quartz-tungsten-halogen and three light-emitting diode light-curing units of different powers. The specimens of composite resin were then mounted on metallic molds utilizing autopolymerizing acrylic resin. After polishing, the complete setting of composite resin material was analyzed using Vickers hardness test. Results Showed in each group, hardness reduced as we moved from upper to lower surface of composite resin. Furthermore, hardness increased as intensity of light was increased. The maximum hardness was detected when light-emitting diode light-curing unit having intensity of 1,250 mW/cm2 was utilized and least hardness was detected when halogen lamp having intensity 418 mW/cm2 was utilized and results were found to be highly significant (p < 0.01). Conclusion It was concluded that increased top and bottom hardness can be accomplished by utilizing the light-curing unit of high intensity.

Composite Resin Microhardness: The Influence of Light Curing Method, Composite Shade, and Depth of Cure

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 43-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesar Henrique Zanchi ◽  
Flávio Fernando Demarco ◽  
Camila Silveira de Araújo ◽  
Marcelo Thomé Schein ◽  
Sinval Adalberto Rodrigues
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Curing Time ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Depth Of Cure ◽  
Quartz Tungsten Halogen ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
Curing Method ◽  
Hardness Values ◽  
Knoop Indenter

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of light curing method, composite shade, and depth of cure on composite microhardness. Methods and Materials Forty-eight specimens with 4 mm of depth were prepared with a hybrid composite (Filtek Z-100, 3M ESPE); 24 with shade A1 and the remaining with shade C2. For each shade, two light curing units (LCUs) were used: a quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) LCU (Optilight Plus - Gnatus) and a light emitting diode (LED) LCU (LEC 470 II - MM Optics). The LED LCU was tested using two exposure times (LED 40 seconds and LED 60 seconds). After 24-hour storage, three indentations were made at mm depth intervals using a Knoop indenter. Data were submitted to three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test (p<0.05). Results The three factors tested (light curing method, shade, and depth) had a significant influence on the composite microhardness (p<0.05). All groups presented similar hardness values in the first mm, except for composite shade C2 cured with LED for 40 seconds. The hardness decreased with depth, especially for shade C2 for 40 seconds. Increasing light-curing time with LED produced hardness values similar to the QTH. Conclusions The light curing method including variations of time, the depth of cure, and the composite shade influence the composite microhardness. Clinical Significance Clinicians should avoid thicker increments when working with composite restorations. Extended light-curing time might be indicated depending on the composite shade and on the light-curing device. Citation de Araújo CS, Schein MT, Zanchi CH, Rodrigues SA Jr, Demarco FF. Composite Resin Microhardness: The Influence of Light Curing Method, Composite Shade, and Depth of Cure. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 May; (9)4:043-050.

scholarly journals Effects of Different Light Curing Units/Modes on the Microleakage of Flowable Composite Resins

2008 ◽  
Vol 02 (04) ◽  
pp. 240-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Ruya Yazici ◽  
Cigdem Celik ◽  
Berrin Dayangac ◽  
Gul Ozgunaltay
Keyword(s):  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Group I ◽  
Halogen Light ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
The Difference

Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of different light curing units and modes on microleakage of flowable composite resins.Methods: Eighty Class V cavities were prepared in buccal and lingual surfaces of 40 extracted human premolars with cervical wall located in dentin and the occlusal wall in enamel. These teeth were randomly assigned into two groups (n=20) and restored with different flowable composites; Group I: Esthet-X Flow, Group II: Grandio Flow. Each group was randomly divided into four subgroups; while the samples of the first subgroup were polymerized with conventional Halogen light, the rest of them were polymerized with different curing modes of Light Emitting Diode (LED). The second subgroup was polymerized with fast-curing; the third subgroup with pulse-curing and those of the fourth subgroup with step-curing modes of LED. After the samples were thermocycled and immersed in dye, they were longitudinally sectioned. Dye penetration was assessed under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.Results: None of the restorations showed leakage on enamel margins. On dentin margins no significant differences were observed between flowable composite resins polymerized with halogen light (P>.05). While step curing mode of LED presented significant differences between the resins, the difference was insignificant when fast-curing and pulse-curing mode of LED were used. No statistically significant differences were observed between curing units for Esthet-X Flow samples. For Grandio Flow samples, only step-curing mode of LED caused statistically higher leakage scores than halogen and other curing modes of LED (P<.05).Conclusions: The effect of curing units� type and curing mode on flowable composite resin leakage might be material-dependent. (Eur J Dent 2008;2:240-246)

scholarly journals The Effect of Irradiation Distance on Microhardness of Resin Composites Cured with Different Light Curing Units

2010 ◽  
Vol 04 (04) ◽  
pp. 440-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isil Cekic-Nagas ◽  
Ferhan Egilmez ◽  
Gulfem Ergun
Keyword(s):  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Composite Layer ◽  
Hardness Test ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Plasma Arc ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Quartz Tungsten Halogen ◽  
Halogen Light ◽  
Light Curing

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the microhardness of five different resin composites at different irradiation distances (2 mm and 9 mm) by using three light curing units (quartz tungsten halogen, light emitting diodes and plasma arc).Methods: A total of 210 disc-shaped samples (2 mm height and 6 mm diameter) were prepared from different resin composites (Simile, Aelite Aesthetic Enamel, Clearfil AP-X, Grandio caps and Filtek Z250). Photoactivation was performed by using quartz tungsten halogen, light emitting diode and plasma arc curing units at two irradiation distances (2 mm and 9 mm). Then the samples (n=7/ per group) were stored dry in dark at 37°C for 24 h. The Vickers hardness test was performed on the resin composite layer with a microhardness tester (Shimadzu HMV). Data were statistically analyzed using nonparametric Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.Results: Statistical analysis revealed that the resin composite groups, the type of the light curing units and the irradiation distances have significant effects on the microhardness values (P<.05).Conclusions: Light curing unit and irradiation distance are important factors to be considered for obtaining adequate microhardness of different resin composite groups. (Eur J Dent 2010;4:440-446)

scholarly journals Surface Hardness of Nanohybrid and Microhybrid Resin Composites Cured by Light Emitting Diode and Quartz Tungsten Halogen Light Curing Systems: An Invitro Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anuradha Vitthal Wankhade ◽  
Sharad Basavraj Kamat ◽  
Santosh Irappa Hugar ◽  
Girish Shankar Nanjannawar ◽  
Sumit Balasaheb Vhate
Keyword(s):  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Quartz Tungsten Halogen ◽  
Halogen Light ◽  
Intergroup Comparison ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
Curing Systems

Introduction: New generation composite resin materials have revolutionized the art of aesthetic dentistry. The clinical success is dependent on effective polymerisation and surface hardness which in turn are dependent on the performance of Light Curing Units (LCU). This study utilises surface hardness as a measure of degree of polymerisation of composite resins achieved by LCUs. Aim: To evaluate the difference in surface hardness of nanohybrid and microhybrid resin composites cured by light curing systems, Light Emitting Diode (LED) and Quartz Tungsten Halogen (QTH). Materials and Methods: In this invitro experimental study, two types of hybrid composites (Nanohybrid and Microhybrid) were tested for surface hardness by using two different light curing systems (LED and QTH). All the Nanohybrid and Microhybrid specimens were cured using LED and QTH LCUs, thus giving four combinations. A total of 60 specimens (6 mm diameter and 2 mm depth) were prepared using Teflon mould with 15 samples for each combination. Surface hardness was measured on upper and lower surface after 24 hours and hardness ratio was calculated. Data was analysed using independent t-test for intergroup comparison. Level of significance was kept at 5%. Results: Surface hardness of resin composites cured by LED LCU was greater than those cured by QTH LCU. Additionally, the hardness value was greater for the upper surface. Nanohybrids showed better surface hardness than Microhybrids for both the LCUs. Conclusion: Nanohybrid composite resins and LED system were found to be more effective in terms of surface hardness as compared to their counterparts.

scholarly journals Sorption, solubility and residual monomers of a dental adhesive cured by different light-curing units

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 432-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francine do Couto Lima Moreira ◽  
Nelson Roberto Antoniosi Filho ◽  
João Batista de Souza ◽  
Lawrence Gonzaga Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Light Source ◽  
High Performance ◽  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Dental Adhesive ◽  
Quartz Tungsten Halogen ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
Storage Times ◽  
Curing Regimes

The aim of this study was to assess polymerization ability of three light-curing units by evaluating the influence of the light source, curing regimen and permeant (water or ethanol) on sorption, solubility and amount of residual monomers of a dental adhesive. Specimens of Adper Single Bond 2 were fabricated using a stainless steel circular matrix (8 mm x 1 mm). One quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) lamp and two light-emitting diode (LED) device at three different curing regimes (L1 = 12 J; L2 = 24 J; L3 = 24 J) were used to cure the specimens. Specimens were stored in two types of permeants - deionized water or 75% ethanol - for two storage times (G1 =7 days; G2 = 30 days). The specimens underwent water sorption and solubility tests, according to ISO 4049:2000 standard. After storage, residual monomers were identified and quantified by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). For sorption, L1 showed the highest values and QTH, the lowest. For solubility, in ethanol-stored groups, L1 had also the highest values, and QTH, the lowest, and findings were significantly different from the other curing regimens. L1 leached significantly more monomers than the others, and QTH had the lowest results. In conclusion, the type of light source, the curing regimen and the permeant affected sorption, solubility and amount of residual monomers of the adhesive under study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document