Abstract
The ability of six curing lights to photocure four resin-based composites (RBCs) in a mold simulating a cavity was compared visually. Four RBCs were photocured using the: Woodpecker B for 2x10s, SmartLite Pro 2x10s, Valo Cordless 2x10s, Valo Cordless 2x3s Xtra power, Valo X 2x10s, Valo X 2x5s Xtra power, PowerCure 2x3s mode, Monet 1x1s and Monet 3x1s, in a mold representing a molar Class II restoration. Immediately after photocuring, the RBC specimens were immersed in a solvent to remove the uncured RBC, after which they were photographed and de-identified. Using a REDCap survey, these images were compared visually to compare the ability of the LCUs to photocure the restorations. There were significant differences in how well the LCUs had photocured the RBCs. The SmartLite Pro and Valo X used for two 10s exposures produced restorations rated as the best cured, and the Monet used for 1 s was rated the worst. There were visually apparent differences in how well the LCUs could photocure the RBCs. The Monet used for 1 second produced the worst results for all four RBCs.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
