Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the degree of conversion (DC) and microlekage scores of three different composite resins polymerized with a LED curing device in standard and extra-power mode. Material and Methods: One bulk-fill (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill – TECBF) and two conventional composite materials (Clearfil Majesty Posterior – CMP and Tetric EvoCeram – TEC) were evaluated. A total of 30 specimens were prepared for six groups (N = 5). These groups were polymerized with a LED curing device as follows: TECBF-6: 3200mW/cm2 for six seconds, TECBF-20: 1000mW/cm2 for 20 seconds, CMP-6: 3200mW/cm2 for six seconds, CMP-20: 1000mW/cm2 for 20 seconds, TEC-6: 3200mW/cm2 for six seconds, TEC - 20: 1000 mW/cm2 for 20 seconds. After 24 hours of water storage, DC was measured by Raman spectroscopy. Microleakage scores of the six groups were bonded to various adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond or Adhese Bond Universal) were also evaluated at Class II box cavities (N = 10). Results: While the highest DC was found at the top (TECBF-20= 79.92% and TECBF-6= 79.02%) and bottom surfaces (TECBF-20 = 68.94% and TECBF-6= 71.04%) for TECBF groups, TEC groups (TEC-20top = 59.06%, TEC-6top=49.66%, TEC-20bottom = 43.72% and TEC-6bottom= 40.68%) showed the lowest DC for the both surfaces (p < 0.05). Polymerization of materials in standard or extra-power mode was similar to DC (p > 0.05). Microleakage scores were found to be similar (p > 0.05). Conclusion: According to the results of the study, different power densities of LED curing light did not affect the DC of composite resins and microleakage values of restorations at small Class II cavities.KEYWORDSBulk-fill composite; degree of conversion; LED curing device; microleakage; Raman spectroscopy.
Highlights
Composite resin materials have been used more often today as a restorative material, and the degree of conversion (DC) of these materials of these soft monomers to rigid polymers appears to be an important situation for clinical success [1]
Samples are easier to prepare for Raman spectroscopy [14]
One bulk-fill (Tetric EvoCeram BulkFill - TECBF) and two conventional (Clearfil Majesty Posterior - CMP and Tetric EvoCeram TEC) composite resin materials were evaluated in a total of six groups
Summary
Composite resin materials have been used more often today as a restorative material, and the DC of these materials of these soft monomers to rigid polymers appears to be an important situation for clinical success [1]. While conventional composite resins reach a DC of approximately 50%-75% [7,8], this rate is reported to range from 50%-79% for bulkfill composites [9, 10]. It has been reported in the literature that the DC should be at least 55% for clinical success [10,11]. Samples are easier to prepare for Raman spectroscopy [14]
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have