Plasma Arc Curing Research Articles

The Knoop Hardness of a Composite Resin Polymerized with Different Curing Lights and Different Modes

The purpose of this study was to compare the surface hardness of a hybrid composite resin polymerized with different curing lights. Two 3.0 mm thick composite resin discs were polymerized in a prepared natural tooth mold using: (1) a conventional quartz-tungsten halogen light (QTH- Spectrum 800); (2) a high-intensity halogen light, Elipar Trilight (TL)-standard/exponential mode; (3) a high-intensity halogen light, Elipar Highlight (HL)-standard/soft-start mode; (4) a light-emitting diode, Elipar Freelight (LED); and (5) a plasma-arc curing light, Virtuoso (PAC). Exposure times were 40 seconds for the halogen and LED lights, and three and five seconds for the PAC light. Following polymerization, the Knoop hardness was measured at the bottom and the top surfaces of the discs. Significant differences were found between top and bottom Knoop Hardness number (KHN) values for all lights. The hardness of the top and bottom surfaces of both specimens cured by the PAC light was significantly lower than the other lights. No significant hardness differences were observed between the remaining curing units at the top of the 2.0 mm specimens. Significant differences were found between the LED and two modes of HL on the bottom surfaces. For the 3.0 mm thick samples, while significant differences were noted between LED and TL standard mode and between the two TL curing modes on the top, significant differences were only observed between QTH and the standard modes of TL and HL at the bottom.

The Linear Shrinkage and Microhardness of Packable Composites Polymerized by QTH or PAC Unit

This study evaluated the effectiveness of a plasma arc curing (PAC) unit for packable resin composite curing. The amount and speed of polymerization shrinkage and the microhardness of packable composites were evaluated in order to compare the PAC unit's effectiveness with a quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) unit. Sure Fil (Dentsply Caulk), Pyramid (BISCO Inc) and Synergy Compact (Colténe/Whaledent) were used as the packable composites. In the case of curing with the PAC unit, the composites were light cured with Apollo 95E (DMD System Inc) for 1 second (Group 1), 2 seconds (Group 2), 3 seconds (Group 3), 6 seconds (Group 4) and 12 seconds (Group 5). For light curing with the QTH unit, the composites were light cured for 60 seconds using XL3000 (Group 6). The linear polymerization shrinkage of each composite was measured using a custom made linometer, and the data was stored in a computer every 0.5 to 0.55 seconds for a total of 60 seconds. For each composite, the amount of polymerization was compared using one-way ANOVA with Tukey at the 95% confidence level. In order to compare the speed of polymerization, the peak time (PT), showing the highest speed of polymerization and maximum speed of polymerization (Smax), were determined from the data and compared using one-way ANOVA with Tukey at the 95% confidence level for each material. Based on the statistical analysis among the PAC-cure groups (Groups 1 through 5), the group that was not statistically different from the QTH-cure group (Group 6) in the amount of linear polymerization shrinkage was determined for each material, and the corresponding curing time of the group was defined as the tentative minimum PAC-curing time (TMPT). For microhardness measurements, the samples were placed in a 2-mm thick Teflon plate. Twenty specimens, randomly divided into the PAC-cure group (Group 1) or the QTH-cure group (Group 2), were prepared for each material. In Group 1, each composite was light cured for TMPT with the PAC unit. In Group 2, each composite was light cured for 60 seconds with the QTH unit. Microhardness was measured on the upper and lower surface. For each material, the microhardness of the upper and lower surface of Groups 1 and 2 was analyzed using two-way ANOVA with Tukey at the 95% confidence level. The amount of polymerization was Group 1<Group 2<Group 3<Group 4<Groups 5, 6 in the Sure Fil composite (p<0.05); Groups 1, 2<Group 3<Groups 4, 6<Group 5 in the Synergy Compact composite (p<0.05) and Group 1 <Group 2 <Group 3 <Groups 4, 6 <Group 5 in the Pyramid composite (p<0.05) Regarding the speed of polymerization, the order of PT was G1, G2, G3<G4, G5<G6 (p<0.05). The order of Rmax was G6<G1, G2, G3, G4, G5 in Sure Fil; G6<G1<G2, G3, G4<G5 in Synergy Compact (p<0.05) and G6<G1<G2, G3<G4, G5 in Pyramid (p<0.05) On the upper surface, there was no statistical difference in microhardness between Groups 1 and 2 in all materials. On the lower surface, the microhardness of Group 2 was significantly higher than Group 1 in all materials. In all materials in Group 1 and the Synergy Compact of Group 2, microhardness of the upper surface was significantly higher than the lower surface (p<0.05). In Sure Fil and Pyramid of Group 2, there was no difference in microhardness between the upper and lower surfaces.

Effects of salicylic–lactic acid conditioner on the shear bond strength of brackets and enamel surfaces

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of salicylic-lactic (SL) acid conditioner on the shear bond strength of brackets. Fluoride releasing (Light-bond) and non-fluoride releasing (Enlight) composite adhesives were used after conditioning with 0.22% salicylic + 9% lactic acid or 34% phosphoric acid. Composite adhesives were light cured with either a halogen light curing (HLC) unit for 30-50 s or a plasma arc curing (PAC) unit for 4 s. The shear bond strength was measured with an Instron. Failure modes of debonded brackets were identified based on adhesive remnants on the bracket and tooth. Salicylic-lactic acid conditioning was found to provide adequate shear bond strength. Groups conditioned with SL acid were debonded mainly at the enamel-resin interface and comparatively clean enamel surface after debonding was observed than those conditioned with phosphoric acid. Using confocal laser scanning microscopic examinations, it was found that demineralization patterns between SL acid and phosphoric acid conditioned groups were not different when the same adhesive was used. The SL acid conditioner did not reduce the demineralization. Light-bond adhesive showed less demineralization than Enlight adhesive. The PAC unit can be recommended as an alterative to the HLC unit because it significantly reduces the irradiation time.

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.

Evaluation of depth of cure and Knoop hardness in a dental composite photo-activated using different methods

The aim of this study was to evaluate the depth of cure and Knoop hardness in the P60 composite resin photo-activated using different methods. A bipartite brass matrix (3 mm in diameter X 11 mm in height) was filled with the composite and photo-activation was performed using continuous light, exponential light, intermittent light, plasma arc curing (PAC) or light-emitting diodes (LED). After opening the matrix, the uncured material was removed with a steel spatula and the polymerized composite was measured using a pachymeter. The specimens were then included in self-curing acrylic resin and worn longitudinally and the hardness was measured on the surface and at depths of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm. The data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's test (5%). The results showed that the depth of cure was higher with the intermittent light, followed by continuous light, exponential light, PAC and LED methods. Up to a depth of 2 mm, all methods revealed similar hardness values, but there were differences between them at other depths, at which LED demonstrated the lowest values followed by PAC.

The degree of conversion of fiber-reinforced composites polymerized using different light-curing sources

Fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) with different polymer matrix compositions are available on the market. The aim of this study was to compare the degree of monomer conversion of FRC that contained either dimethacrylate resin matrix or semi-IPN resin matrix. In addition, the effect of different types of light-curing units and durations of light irradiation on the degree of conversion was evaluated. Continuous unidirectional fibers impregnated with dimethacrylate or semi-IPN resin were compared. As control materials, a particulate filler composite resin and an unfilled resin were used. The materials were photopolymerized using various irradiation times and different types of light-curing units (quartz-tungsten-halogen with standard or turbo tip, light-emitting diode and plasma-arc). Degree of monomer conversion (DC%) was determined by FT-IR spectrometry. The infrared spectra were recorded at seven different time points after polymerization. ANOVA showed significant differences between the materials tested, and the curing units (P<0.05). The DC% of semi-IPN and dimethacrylate matrix FRC was not statistically different (P>0.05) compared to that of unfilled resin. Conventional quartz-tungsten halogen with turbo tip showed the highest DC% (69-72.3%), whereas the plasma-arc curing unit showed the lowest degree of conversion (47-62%). Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that semi-IPN matrix of FRC did not show a difference in the degree of conversion compared to dimethacrylate resin FRC when quartz-tungsten or a light-emitting diode polymerization unit was used. The plasma-arc light-curing unit showed a lower degree of conversion with all materials compared to the light-emitting diode and quartz-tungsten-halogen lamps.

The efficiency of different light sources to polymerize resin cement beneath porcelain laminate veneers.

Plasma arc light units for curing resin composites have been introduced with the claim of relatively short curing times. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of two different light sources to polymerize dual curing resin cement beneath porcelain laminate veneers. Twenty extracted healthy human maxillary centrals were used. Teeth were sectioned 2 mm below the cemento-enamel junction and crown parts were embedded into self-cure acrylic resin, labial surface facing up. Cavity preparation was carried out on labial surfaces. These teeth were divided into two groups of 10 each. The resin cement/veneer combination was exposed to two different photo polymerization units. A conventional halogen light (Hilux 350, Express Dental Products) and a plasma arc light (Power PAC, ADT) were used to polymerize resin cement. Ten specimens were polymerized conventionally (40 s) and the other specimens by plasma arc curing (PAC) (6 s). Two samples from each tooth measuring 1.2 x 1.2 x 5 mm were prepared. These sections were subjected to microshear testing and failure values were recorded. Statistically significant differences were found between the bond strength of veneers exposed to conventional light and PAC unit (P < 0.001). Samples polymerized with halogen light showed better bond strength. The results of this study suggest that the curing efficiency of PAC through ceramic was lower compared with conventional polymerization for the exposure durations tested in this study.

Plasma arc curing of ceramic brackets: an evaluation of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics

The aim of this in vitro investigation was to evaluate bond strength and debonding characteristics when a xenon plasma arc curing light is used to bond polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets. Brackets were bonded to 240 extracted bovine mandibular incisors with a composite adhesive. Curing intervals of 1, 3, and 6 seconds were chosen for curing with the plasma arc light, and the control group was cured at 10 seconds per bracket with a conventional halogen light. Debonding was performed on a universal testing machine and according to the bracket manufacturers’ recommendations. Both the polycrystalline and the monocrystalline brackets consistently debonded at the bracket-adhesive interface, regardless of debonding method, curing interval, or curing light. No enamel fractures were observed after debonding. Bracket fractures were rare and did not affect debonding. Bond strength was significantly higher for the monocrystalline brackets ( P < .0001): mean shear bond strength ranged between 9.68 ± 2.17 MPa (plasma arc curing light, 1 sec curing interval) and 10.73 ± 3.22 MPa (halogen light, 10 sec curing interval) for the polycrystalline brackets and between 19.85 ± 2.97 MPa (plasma arc curing light, 1 sec curing interval) and 22.94 ± 3.20 MPa (plasma arc curing light, 3 sec curing interval) for the monocrystalline brackets. Significant differences were also found for the curing methods used ( P = .047). A curing interval of 3 seconds with the plasma arc curing light is recommended for both polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets.

Irradiance effects on the mechanical properties of universal hybrid and flowable hybrid resin composites

Objectives. A potential problem with high-intensity lights might be failure of polymer chains to grow and cross-link in a desired fashion, thereby affecting the structure and properties of the polymers formed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate mechanical properties of resin composites polymerized using four different light-curing units. Methods. A conventional quartz–tungsten–halogen (QTH) light, a soft-start light, an argon-ion laser, and a plasma-arc curing light were used to polymerize disk-shaped (9.0 mm diameter×1.0 mm high) and cylinder-shaped (4 mm diameter×8 mm high) specimens of a universal hybrid and a flowable hybrid composite. Biaxial flexure strength, fracture toughness, hardness, compressive strength, and diametral tensile strength were determined for each composite. Results. The use of the plasma-arc curing light, a high-intensity light, resulted in significantly lower hardness for the universal hybrid composite compared with the hardness obtained using the conventional QTH and the soft-start units. Hardness was the only mechanical property that was adversely affected by the use of a high-intensity light. Significance. High-intensity lights might affect some resin composite mechanical properties, but this effect cannot be generalized to all resin composites and all properties.

Elution of leachable components from resin composites after plasma arc vs. standard or soft-start halogen light irradiation

Objectives. To determine the release of leachable components from resin based composites (RBC) after plasma arc vs. standard or soft-start halogen curing. Methods. The tested RBC were the fine hybrids Herculite XRV (Kerr), Solitaire 2 (Kulzer) and Z250 (3M), the micro-fill Silux Plus (3M) and the polysiloxane-containing Definite (Degussa). The irradiation protocols included halogen standard irradiation at three different intensities (TriLight, ESPE), ramp curing (dito), step curing (HiLight, ESPE), pulse polymerization (VIP Light, BISCO) and plasma curing (Apollo 95E, DMDS; PAC Light, ADT). Initial solubility was determined applying RBC into simulated cavities (molds of 6 mm inner diameter and 2 mm height fabricated from pressed ceramics) and eluting 24 h in demineralized water at 37 °C. Medium-term solubility was evaluated using plain RBC specimens of equivalent dimensions stored dark (37 °C, 24 h) and extracted in 50% CH 3OH (37 °C, 72 h). After drying the specimens to constant weight, solubility and sorption were determined gravimetrically. Results. Medium-term solubility/sorption were higher than initial ones. Irradiation at reduced intensity increased solubility and sorption, whereas ramp curing, step curing and pulse polymerization (for most materials) maintained low values. Plasma arc curing worked well for Z250 and Herculite XRV, compared to medium or low intensity halogen irradiation for Silux Plus and Definite and produced moderately (PAC Light) or very (Apollo 95E) high solubility for Solitaire 2. Conclusions. Reducing irradiation intensity does and soft-start protocols do not compromise solubility and sorption. The efficiency of plasma arc curing depends markedly on the types of photo-initiators used.

Comparison of linear polymerization shrinkage in composites and compomer polymerized by plasma arc or conventional visible light curing

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of plasma arc curing (PAC) unit for composite and compomer curing. To compare its effectiveness with conventional quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) light curing unit, the polymerization shrinkage rates and amounts of three composites (Z100, Z250, Synergy Duo Shade) and one compomer, that had been light cured by PAC unit or QTH unit, was compared using a custome made linometer. The measurement of polymerization shrinkage was performed after polymerization with either QTH unit or PAC unit. In case of curing with the PAC unit, the composite was light cured with Apollo 95E for 6s, the power density of which was recorded as 1350 mW/cm 2 by Coltolux Light Meter. For light curing with QTH unit, the composite was light cured for 30s with the XL2500, the power density of which was recorded as 800 mW/cm2 by Coltolux Light Meter. The amount of linear polymerization shrinkage was recorded in the computer every 0.5s for 60s. Ten measurements were made for each material. The amount of linear polymerization shrinkage for each material in 10s and 60s which were cured with PAC or QTH unit were compared with t test. The amount of polymerization shrinkage in the tested materials were compared with 1way ANOVA with Duncan’ s multiple range test. As for the amounts of polymerization shrinkage in 60s, there was no difference between PAC unit and QTH unit in Z250 and Synergy Duo Shade. In Z100 and Dyract AP, it was lower when it was cured with PAC unit than when it was cured with QTH unit (p<0.05). As for the amounts of polymerization shrinkage in 10s, there was no difference between PAC unit and QTH unit in Z100 and Dyract AP. The amounts of polymerization shrinkage was significantly higher when it was cured with PAC unit in Z250 and Synergy Duo Shade (p<0.05). The amounts of polymerization shrinkage in the tested materials when they were cured with QTH unit were Z250 (6.6um) < Z100 (9.3um), Dyract AP (9.7um) < Synergy Duo Shade (11.2um) (p<0.05). The amount of polymerization shrinkage when the materials were cured with PAC unit were Dyract AP (5.6um) < Z100 (8.1um), Z250(7.0um)<Synergy Duo Shade (11.2um) (p<0.05).

Inhibition of the progress of root dentine caries in vitro by fluoride-releasing resin : Torii Y., Kato R., Ui T. et al. (1990) Jap. J. Conserv. Dent.33, 1143–1150

Our objective was to compare the effects of 3 light-curing units (LCUs) (quartz-tungsten-halogen [QTH], light-emitting diode [LED], and plasma-arc curing [PAC]) on the microleakage patterns of a polyacid-modified composite (PAMC) for band cementation between the cement-enamel and the cement-band interfaces from the buccal, lingual, occlusal, and gingival margins.Sixty freshly extracted third molars were randomly divided into 3 groups of 20 teeth each. Microetched molar bands were cemented in all groups with the PAMC (Ultra Band-Lok, Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill) and cured for 30 seconds with the QTH (Hilux 350, Express Dental Products, Toronto, Ontario, Canada), for 20 seconds with the LED (Elipar Freelight 2, 3M Espe, Seefeld, Germany), or for 6 seconds with the PAC (Power-Pac, American Medical Technologies, Hannover, Germany). A dye penetration method was used for microleakage evaluation. Microleakage was determined with a stereomicroscope for the cement-band and cement-enamel interfaces from the buccal and lingual sides at the occlusal and gingival margins. Statistical analyses were performed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. The level of significance was set at P <0.05.The gingival sides in the LED and PAC groups had higher microleakage scores compared with those observed on the occlusal sides at both the cement-band and cement-enamel interfaces. The buccal sides had similar microleakage values compared with those on the lingual sides for the cement-enamel and cement-band interfaces in all LCU types. Statistical comparisons showed that there were statistically significant differences among the investigated LCUs at the cement-enamel interface (P <0.05). Post hoc comparisons showed statistically significant microleakage differences between the PAC (median, 0.950 mm), the QTH (median, 0.383 mm) (P <0.01), and the PAC and the LED (median, 0.558 mm) (P <0.05) LCUs at the cement-enamel interfaces.The high-intensity curing device PAC is associated with more microleakage than the LED and QTH at the cement-enamel interface.