Effect of Distance from Curing Light Tip to Restoration Surface on Depth of Cure of Composite Resin

2008 ◽  
Vol os15 (4) ◽  
pp. 147-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M Dunne ◽  
Brian J Millar
Keyword(s):  
Light Exposure ◽  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Light Output ◽  
Separation Distance ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Human Tooth ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Depth Of Cure ◽  
Halogen Light ◽  
Light Curing

Aims While light-activating composite resins, the light tip may not always be close to the surface of the restoration. This may be intentional in an attempt to create a ramp cure. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of a range of separation distances between the light tip and the restoration surface on the depth of composite cure for different types of light-curing units with a broad range of outputs. Methods Three halogen light units, one plasma arc-curing (PAC) light unit and two light-emitting diode (LED) curing lights in clinical use were tested, and a total of 570 restorations cured in a two-part human tooth model at separations ranging from 0 to 15 mm. The tooth was disassembled and depth of cure determined using the scrape test ISO 4049. Light intensity was also measured at each separation distance for each light. Results The depth of cure was generally found to decrease as the separation distance increased for all lights at the various cure times. However, the effect of increasing the separation distance was less than anticipated. The depth of cure was also related to the light output. Conclusions Depth of composite cure was directly related to intensity and duration of light exposure and inversely related to distance of the light source from the surface for halogen and plasma lights. However, the effect of increasing the separation distance up to 15 mm was less than expected. Altering the separation distance in order to modify the polymerisation characteristics is unlikely to be effective.

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 The effects of halogen and light-emitting diode light curing on the depth of cure and surface microhardness of composite resins

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 136 ◽  
Author(s):  
BatuCan Yaman ◽  
Can Dörter ◽  
Dina Erdilek ◽  
BegümGüray Efes ◽  
Yavuz Gömeç ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Surface Microhardness ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Depth Of Cure ◽  
Light Curing

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 Effectiveness of composite resin polymerization using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) or halogen-based light-curing units

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 266-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bianca Micali ◽  
Roberta Tarkany Basting
Keyword(s):  
Hybrid Composite ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Halogen Light ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
Blue Solution

The clinical performance of composite resins is greatly influenced by the quality of the light-curing unit used. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of a commercial light-emitting diode (LED) with that of a halogen-based light-curing unit by means of dye penetration of a micro hybrid composite resin. The composite resin evaluated was Filtek Z250 (3M Dental). The composite was filled into acrylic moulds that were randomly polymerized for 40 seconds by each of the light-emitting systems: light-emitting diode Ultraled (Dabi Atlante) or halogen light Degulux (Degussa Hüls) curing units. Immediately after polymerization, each specimen was individually immersed in 1 ml of 2% methylene blue solution at 37°C ± 2°C. After 24 hours, the specimens were rinsed under running distilled water for 1 minute and stored at 37°C ± 2°C at relative humidity for 24 hours. The composite resins were removed from the moulds and individually triturated before being immersed in new test tubes containing 1 ml of absolute alcohol for 24 hours. The solutions were filtered and centrifuged for 3 minutes at 4,000 rpm and the supernatant was used to determine absorbance in a spectrophotometer at 590 nm. To verify the differences between groups polymerized by LED or halogen light t-test was applied. No significant differences were found between composite resins light-cured by LED or halogen light-curing unit (p > 0.05). The commercially LED-based light-curing unit is as effective to polymerize hybrid composite resins as the halogen-based unit.

scholarly journals Polymerization quality testing of composite resins cured by led light source

2003 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larisa Blazic ◽  
Slavoljub Zivkovic ◽  
Dejan Pantelic ◽  
Vladimir Pipic
Keyword(s):  
Light Source ◽  
Light Exposure ◽  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Curing Time ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Led Light ◽  
Depth Of Cure ◽  
Dental Tissues ◽  
Hard Dental Tissues

The quality of interface between composite resin materials and hard dental tissues is highly dependent on the polymerization light source. Newly developed blue light- emitting diode units for light polymerization of dental restorative materials are the most innovative light source technology in dentistry nowadays. The aim of this work was to estimate the depth of cure of five different light-activating composite resins exposed to different irradiation times (5s, 10s, 20s and 40s) when the experimental LED light source was used. The tested materials were: Tetric Ceram (Vivadent), Point 4 (Kerr), Admira (VOCO), Filtek Z250 (3M) and Diamond Lite (DRM Lab., Inc). The depth of cure testing was determined using a penetrometer. Results after 40s curing time were as following: the deepest depth of cure was achieved after application of Filtek Z 250, Diamond Lite Point 4 and Tetric Ceram. For the restorative material Admira was found the lowest depth of cure for the light exposure of 40s. An experimental LED light source achieved a sufficient depth of cure (over 2 mm) for all tested materials after curing time of 10s. The polymerization light source spectral distribution should be considered in addition to irradiance as a depth of cure indicator.

scholarly journals Microleakage under Orthodontic Brackets Using High-Intensity Curing Lights

2009 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Ulker ◽  
Tancan Uysal ◽  
Sabri Ilhan Ramoglu ◽  
Huseyin Ertas
Keyword(s):  
High Intensity ◽  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Bonferroni Correction ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Halogen Light ◽  
Halogen Light Source ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
Curing Light ◽  
High Intensity Light ◽  
Nail Varnish

Abstract Objective: To compare the microleakage of the enamel-adhesive-bracket complex at the occlusal and gingival margins of brackets bonded with high-intensity light curing lights and conventional halogen lights. Materials and Methods: Forty-five freshly extracted human maxillary premolar teeth were randomly separated into three groups of 15 teeth each. Stainless steel brackets were bonded in all groups according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Specimens (15 per group) were cured for 40 seconds with a conventional halogen light, 20 seconds with light-emitting diode (LED), and 6 seconds with plasma arc curing light (PAC). After curing, the specimens were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic-fuchsine for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for microleakage for the enamel-adhesive and bracket-adhesive interfaces from both the occlusal and gingival margins. Statistical analyses were performed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests with a Bonferroni correction. Results: The type of light curing unit did not significantly affect the amount of microleakage at the gingival or occlusal margins of investigated interfaces (P &gt;.05). The gingival sides in the LED and PAC groups exhibited higher microleakage scores compared with those observed on occlusal sides for the enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces. The halogen light source showed similar microleakage at the gingival and occlusal sides between both adhesive interfaces. Conclusions: High-intensity curing units did not cause more microleakage than conventional halogen lights. This supports the use of all these curing units in routine orthodontic practice.

scholarly journals Water sorption of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements photoactivated with LED

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Francisca Gigo Cefaly ◽  
Linda Wang ◽  
Liliam Lucia Carrara Paes de Mello ◽  
Janaína Lima dos Santos ◽  
Jean Rodrigo dos Santos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Sorption ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Constant Mass ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Halogen Light ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Light Curing

The Light Emitting Diodes (LED) technology has been used to photoactivate composite resins and there is a great number of published studies in this area. However, there are no studies regarding resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC), which also need photoactivation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate water sorption of two RMGIC photoactivated with LED and to compare this property to that obtained with a halogen light curing unit. A resin composite was used as control. Five specimens of 15.0 mm in diameter x 1.0 mm in height were prepared for each combination of material (Fuji II LC Improved, Vitremer, and Filtek Z250) and curing unit (Radii and Optilight Plus) and transferred to desiccators until a constant mass was obtained. Then the specimens were immersed into deionized water for 7 days, weighed and reconditioned to a constant mass in desiccators. Water sorption was calculated based on weight and volume of specimens. The data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05). Specimens photocured with LED presented significantly more water sorption than those photocured with halogen light. The RMGIC absorbed statistically significant more water than the resin composite. The type of light curing unit affected water sorption characteristics of the RMGIC.

scholarly journals Abrasion resistance of composites polymerized by light-emitting diodes (LED) and halogen light-curing units

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janisse Martinelli ◽  
Fernanda de Carvalho Panzeri Pires-de-Souza ◽  
Luciana Assirati Casemiro ◽  
Camila Tirapelli ◽  
Heitor Panzer
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Mass Loss ◽  
Abrasion Resistance ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Halogen Lamp ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Halogen Light ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
Toothbrush Abrasion

This study compared the abrasion resistance of direct composite resins cured by light-emitting diodes (LED) and halogen light-curing units. Twenty specimens (12 mm in diameter; 1.0 mm thick) of each composite resin [TPH (Dentsply); Definite (Degussa); Charisma (Heraus Kulzer)] were prepared using a polytetrafluoroethylene matrix. Ten specimens per material were cured with the LED source and 10 with the halogen lamp for 40 s. The resin discs were polished, submitted to initial surface roughness reading (Ra initial - mum) in a roughness tester and stored in water at 37°C for 15 days. The specimens were weighed (M1) and submitted to simulated toothbrushing using slurry of water and dentifrice with high abrasiveness. After 100 minutes in the toothbrushing simulator, the specimens were cleaned, submitted to a new surface roughness reading (Ra final - mum) and reweighed (M2). Mass loss was determined as the difference between M1 and M2. Data were recorded and analyzed statistically by one-way ANOVA and Tukey Test at 5% significance level. The composite resin with greater size of inorganic fillers (TPH) showed the lowest mass loss and surface roughness means, indicating a higher resistance to toothbrush abrasion (p<0.05). Definite cured with LED presented the least resistance to toothbrush abrasion, showing the highest means of surface roughness and mass loss (p<0.05). The LED source did not show the same effectiveness as the halogen lamp for polymerizing this specific composite resin. When the composite resins were cured a halogen LCU, no statistically significant difference was observed among the materials (p>0.05). It may be concluded that the type of light-curing unit and the resin composition seemed to interfere with the materials' resistance to abrasion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document