Conventional Halogen Light-curing Research Articles

Degree of Conversion and Mechanical Properties of Resin Cements Cured Through Different All-Ceramic Systems.

The aim of this study was to verify the degree of conversion (DC), Vickers microhardness (VH) and elastic modulus (E) of resin cements cured through different ceramic systems. One 1.5-mm-thick disc of each ceramic system (feldspathic, lithium dissilicate and zircônia veneered with feldspathic) was used. Three dual-cured (Allcem, Variolink II and RelyX U200) and one chemically-cured (Multilink) resin cements were activated through ceramic discs. For dual-cured resin cements was used a conventional halogen light-curing unit (Optilux 501 at 650 mW/cm2 for 120 s). Samples cured without the ceramic disc were used as control. The samples were stored at 37 °C for 24 h. ATR/FTIR spectrometry was used to evaluate the extent of polymerization in the samples (n=5). Micromechanical properties - VH and E - of the resin cements (n=5) were measured with a dynamic indentation test. Data were statistically analyzed with two-way ANOVA, Tukey's test and Pearson's correlation (α=0.05). DC was affected only by the type of resin cement (p=0.001). For VH, significant interaction was detected between resin cement and ceramic (p=0.045). The dual-cured resin cements showed no significant differences in mean values for E and significantly higher values than the chemically-cured resin cement. The degree of conversion and the mechanical properties of the evaluated resin cements depend on their activation mode and the type of ceramics used in 1.5 mm thickness. The dual-cured resin cements performed better than the chemically-cured resin cement in all studied properties.

Influence of light energy density on heat generation during photoactivation of dental composites with different dentin and composite thickness

Objective:The aim of this study was to determine the influence of different energy densities on the heat generated during photoactivation of Filtek Z250 (3M/ESPE) and Z100 (3M/ESPE) composite resins with different dentin and composite thickness.Material and Methods:The temperature increase was registered with a type-K thermocouple connected to a digital thermometer (Iopetherm 46). A chemically polymerized acrylic resin base was prepared to serve as a guide for the thermocouple and as a support for 0.5-, 1.0-, and 1.5-mm-thick bovine dentin discs. Circular elastomer molds (1.0 mm-height x 3.0-mm diameter or 2.0-mm height x 3.0-mm diameter) were adapted on the acrylic resin base to standardize the composite resin thickness. A conventional halogen light-curing unit (XL 2500, 3M/ESPE) was used with light intensity of 700 mW/cm2. Energy density was calculated by the light intensity applied during a certain time with values of 28 J/cm2 for Z100 and 14 J/cm2 for Filtek Z250. The temperature change data were subjected to three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at 5% level.Results:The higher energy density (Z100) promoted greater temperature increase (p<0.05) than the lower energy density (Filtek Z250). For both composites and all composite thicknesses, the lowest dentin thickness (0.5 mm) yielded significantly higher (p<0.05) temperature increase than the other two dentin thicknesses. The 1-mm-thick composite resin layer yielded significantly higher (p<0.05) temperature changes for both composites and all dentin thicknesses.Conclusions:Temperature increase was influenced by higher energy density and dentin/composite thickness.

Curing depth of composite resin light cured by LED and halogen light-curing units

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the polymerization effectiveness of a composite resin (Z-250) utilizing microhardness testing. In total, 80 samples with thicknesses of 2 and 4 mm were made, which were photoactivated by a conventional halogen light-curing unit, and light-curing units based on LED. The samples were stored in water distilled for 24 h at 37°C. The Vickers microhardness was performed by the MMT-3 microhardness tester. The microhardness means obtained were as follows: G1, 72.88; G2, 69.35; G3, 67.66; G4, 69.71; G5, 70.95; G6, 75.19; G7, 72.96; and G8, 71.62. The data were submitted to an analysis of variance (ANOVA’s test), adopting a significance level of 5%. The results showed that, in general, there were no statistical differences between the halogen and LED light-curing units used with the same parameters.

Pulp Chamber Temperature Rise during Curing of Resin-Based Composites with Different Light-Curing Units

Aims The purpose of the present study was to measure the intrapulpal temperature rise occurring during polymerisation of different shades of resin-based composites (RBCs), and two light-emitting diode (LED) units. Methods Seventy non-carious permanent molars, that had been extracted for orthodontic purposes and stored in 2% thymol for not more than four months, were selected. Patient age range was 11–18 years. Standard cavity preparation with standardised remaining dentine thickness and placement of thermocouples (TCs) was prepared using a novel split-tooth technique. Cavities were filled with one of two shades of RBC (A2 and C4, Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), and cured with two LED high-intensity units (Elipar Freelight2, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany; Bluephase, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and a conventional halogen light-curing unit (LCU) (Prismetics Lite 2, Dentsply, Weybridge, Surrey, UK) as a control. Results Pulp temperature rises during bonding [A2 results: H;2.67/0.48:E;5.24/1.32;B;5.99/1.61] were always greater than during RBC curing [A2 results: 2.44/0.63;E3.34/0.70;B3.38/0.60], and these were significant for both LED lights but not for the halogen control, irrespective of shade (Mann-Whitney test: 95% confidence limits). Temperature rises were at times in excess of the values normally quoted as causing irreversible pulp damage. Pulp temperature rises during bonding were higher with the LED lights than with the halogen control. There was no significant difference in temperature rise between the two LED lights when bonding but there was a significant difference between the two LED lights and the halogen control LCUs (Kruskal-Wallis Test: 95% confidence limits). Conclusions The results support the view that there is a potential risk for heat-induced pulpal injury when light-curing RBCs. The risk is greater during bonding and with high energy, as compared to low-energy output systems. As the extent of tolerable thermal trauma by the pulp tissues is unknown, care and consideration should be given to the choice of LCU and the exposure time when curing RBCs, and especially during bonding.

Light-emitting diode vs halogen light curing of orthodontic brackets: A 15-month clinical study of bond failures

Previous in-vitro investigations reported no significant differences in the bond strength of brackets cured with conventional halogen lamps and those cured with light-emitting diodes (LED), even though LED curing times are much shorter. However, it is not known how LED curing performs in the oral cavity. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of brackets cured with 2 light-curing units: a conventional halogen unit and an LED. Thirty patients treated with fixed appliances were included in this study. The bonding followed a contralateral quadrant pattern: in each patient, 2 quadrants were cured with the conventional halogen unit, and the other 2 quadrants were cured with the LED unit. The study had a single blind controlled design with a within-patient comparison of the 2 curing techniques, and the patients were allocated randomly. A total of 544 stainless steel brackets were examined for bracket failure. Location (tooth), cause, and date of failure were recorded over 15 months. Statistical analyses were performed with the Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and the log rank test. No statistically significant differences were found in total bond failure rate or in mean survival time between brackets cured with the halogen light and those cured with the LED. Neither were significant differences found between the 2 lights when the clinical performances of the maxillary and mandibular arches were compared, or when the posterior and anterior segments were compared. These results show that curing with an LED does not result in more bond failures or shorter time to failure when compared with conventional halogen light curing. Curing with an LED is an acceptable alternative to conventional halogen light curing.

Temperature Rise in the Pulp Chamber Induced by a Conventional Halogen Light-Curing Source and a Plasma Arc Lamp

Temperature Rise in the Pulp Chamber Induced by a Conventional Halogen Light-Curing Source and a Plasma Arc Lamp

Wear of Resin Composites Polymerized by Conventional Halogen Light Curing and Light Emitting Diodes Curing Units

In this study, the wear characteristics of five different dental composite resins cured by conventional halogen light and LED light sources were investigated. Five different dental composite resins of Surefil, Z100, Dyract AP, Fuji II LC and Compoglass were worn against a zirconia ceramic ball using a pin-on-disk type wear tester with 15 N contact force in a reciprocal sliding motion of sliding distance of 10 mm/cycle at 1Hz under the room temperature dry condition. The wear variations of dental composite resins were linearly increased as the number of cycles increased. It was observed that the wear resistances of these specimens were in the order of Dyract AP &gt; Surefil &gt; Compoglass &gt; Z100 &gt; Fuji ı LC. On the morphological observations by SEM, the large crack formation on the sliding track of Fuji ıLC specimen was the greatest among all resin composites. Dyract AP showed less wear with few surface damage. There is no significant difference in wear performance between conventional halogen light curing and light emitting diodes curing sources. It indicates that a light emitting diodes (LED) source can replace a halogen light source as curing unit for composite resin restorations.

Degree of conversion of two lingual retainer adhesives cured with different light sources

The aim of this study was to evaluate the degree of conversion (DC) of two lingual retainer adhesives, Transbond Lingual Retainer (TLR) and Light Cure Retainer (LCR), cured with a fast halogen light, a plasma arc light and a light-emitting diode (LED) at various curing times. A conventional halogen light served as the control. One hundred adhesive samples (five per group) were cured for 5, 10 or 15 seconds with an Optilux 501 (fast halogen light), for 3, 6 or 9 seconds with a Power Pac (plasma arc light), or for 10, 20 or 40 seconds with an Elipar Freelight (LED). Samples cured for 40 seconds with the conventional halogen lamp were used as the controls. Absorbance peaks were recorded using Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy. DC values were calculated. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests. For the TLR, the highest DC values were achieved in 6 and 9 seconds with the plasma arc light. Curing with the fast halogen light for 15 seconds and with the LED for 40 seconds produced statistically similar DC values, but these were lower than those with the plasma arc light. All of these light exposures yielded a statistically significantly higher DC than 40 seconds of conventional halogen light curing. The highest DC value for the LCR was achieved in 15 seconds with the fast halogen light, then the plasma arc light curing for 6 seconds. These two combinations produced a statistically significantly higher DC when compared with the 40 seconds of conventional halogen light curing. The lowest DC for the LCR was achieved with 10 seconds of LED curing. The overall DC of the LCR was significantly higher than that of the TLR. The results suggest that a similar or higher DC than the control values could be achieved in 6-9 seconds by plasma arc curing, in 10-15 seconds by fast halogen curing or in 20 seconds by LED curing.