Visible Light-cured Composite Resin Research Articles

In vitro study of discoloration of visible light-cured composite resins: II. The effects of the irradiation conditions and timing of polishing to the discoloration

In vitro study of discoloration of visible light-cured composite resins: II. The effects of the irradiation conditions and timing of polishing to the discoloration

A study on visible light-cured composite resins. The influence of long-term water immersion on physical and mechanical properties

A study on visible light-cured composite resins. The influence of long-term water immersion on physical and mechanical properties

The Influences of Monomer Composition and Filler on Light Permeability and Polymerization of Visible Light-cured Composite Resin

The Influences of Monomer Composition and Filler on Light Permeability and Polymerization of Visible Light-cured Composite Resin

Three-year study of two light-cured posterior composite resins.

Abstract Two visible light-cured composite resins, Ful-Fil and X-55, were used to restore 136 Class I and Class II cavity preparations in adult teeth. After three years, the ratings for color matching, interfacial staining, secondary caries, and marginal adaptation remained good using USPHS criteria (ranging from 72% to 100% Alfa). The average surface loss due to occlusal wear was 145 and 164 micrometers for Ful-Fil and X-55, respectively. These results indicate that Ful-Fil composite resin meets the current ADA Council on Dental Materials specifications for provisional acceptance in adult posterior teeth.

Colour change of visible light-cured composite resin during irradiation. : Takayama T., Kizima S., Nagamine T. et al. (1985) Jap. J. Conserv. Dent.28, 711–717

Colour change of visible light-cured composite resin during irradiation. : Takayama T., Kizima S., Nagamine T. et al. (1985) Jap. J. Conserv. Dent.28, 711–717

A clinical comparison of three anterior restorative resins at 3 years

An in vivo comparison was made of three different types of restorative resins: a conventional composite resin, a chemically cured microfilled resin, and a small-particle, glass-filled, visible light-cured composite resin. Twenty-eight sets of three restorations were placed 20 patients and examined using the Ryge rating system. All resins performed well and were not significantly different from one another at 1 year. After 3 years, all materials were considered satisfactory, but the conventional composite resins had significantly more surface roughness than did the other resins. Each of the resin materials also declined in color match after 3 years.

A Study on Visible Light-cured Composite Resins

A Study on Visible Light-cured Composite Resins

Analysis of camphorquinone in visible light-cured composite resins.

Abstract Gas-liquid chromatography on a 10% polyethylene glycol column was found to be suitable for quantitative analysis of 2,3-diketo-1,7,7-trimethylnorcamphane which is used as an initiator for polymerization of visible light-cured resins. Five visible light-cured resin samples commercially available were analyzed by this method and it was found that all the samples tested contained more or less similar amounts of quinone, indicating that quinone is widely used as initiator in visible light-cured resins. Quinone was found not only in resin pastes but also in bonding agents, the concentration of quinone in these samples varied from brand to brand, and conventional resins which contained more filler showed a higher concentration of quinone than the microfilled resins tested.

Interface strength of incremental placement of visible light-cured composites

The strength of bond at the interface was determined when a visible light-cured composite resin is immediately added to a previously cured surface. In general, small particle composites (Aurafill excepted) tend to lose a small amount of strength at the interface, whereas the microfilled and hybrid composites do not.

Interface seal of incremental placement of visible light-cured composite resins

An investigation was conducted to determine the quality of seal at the interface when a visible light-cured composite resin was placed and cured in increments. Five samples of each of the following composite materials were tested: Aurafill, Command, Command Ultrafine, Durafill, Prisma-Fil, and Silux. Samples of each material were placed in a thermocycling dye bath that contained a 0.5% aqueous solution of basic fuchsin dye for 25 hours. The samples were removed from the dye bath, rinsed, dried, and prepared for examination with a x25 microscope by two examiners. Neither examiner reported dye penetration at the interface of the materials tested. These findings effectively highlight the practicality of the incremental placement of light-cured composite resins.

Microleakage of posterior composite restorations.

Abstract Several composite restorative resins have recently been introduced for use in posterior teeth. A number of dentin bonding agents are commercially available for use in conjunction with composite restorative resins. The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the microleakage of Class II MOD preparations in extracted human mandibular molar teeth restored with a chemically-activated posterior composite resin (P 10) and a visible light-cured composite resin (P 30) used in conjunction with a low viscosity bonding resin (Enamel Bond) and a dentin bonding resin (Scotchbond), respectively. The restored teeth were subjected to 100 complete temperature cycles in an aqueous 45CaCl2 solution between 5°C and 55°C and the microleakage evaluated from autoradiographs. Microleakage was observed at the cervical aspects of all the restorations. The results of this in vitro study suggest that microleakage may occur at these sites of posterior composite restorations.

Marginal leakage of visible light-cured composite resin restorations.

In 1972, an ultraviolet light to polymerize a composite resin was introduced to the dental profession. The light-activated resins provided advantages to the practicing dentist. Working time was almost unlimited, curing time was short, and the set material attained its final physical properties almost immediately. With the introduction of preactivated paste systems, no mixing was necessary; hence no air was incorporated into the resin during mixing.' The introduction of ultraviolet light raised the question of the potential biologic risk associated with its clinical use. 2,3 More recently, manufacturers have marketed visible light-curing resins, apparently to minimize the potential biologic risk of the ultraviolet systems. The advantages in clinical use are essentially the same as those of the ultraviolet light-cured systems. The visible light-curing systems will polymerize both conventional and microfilled composite resins. Several studies have reported the marginal leakage of conventional and microfilled self-curing composite resins. 4-6 In addition, a study specifically dealing with the marginal leakage of an ultraviolet light-activated resin system has been published. 7 In this study, the marginal leakage of several commercially available visible lightcured composite resin materials was evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS The composite resins selected for study were Heliosit (Vivadent USA, Tonawanda, N.Y.) and Visio-Dispers (ESPE/Premier, Norristown, Pa.), both visible lightcured microfilled composite resins; Prisma-Fil, (L. D. Caulk Co., Milford, Del.), a small-particle conventional composite resin; and and Visar-Fil (Den-Mat, Inc., Santa Maria, Calif.), a composite resin with both conventional and microfilled particles. In addition, two chemically cured composite resins were evaluated: Profile (S. S. White Dental Products International, Philadelphia, Pa.), a small-particle conventional composite

Compositions of various visible light-cured composite resins and elutions of residual monomer from these cured resins

Compositions of various visible light-cured composite resins and elutions of residual monomer from these cured resins

The heterogeneities of polymerization of visible light-cured composite resins

The heterogeneities of polymerization of visible light-cured composite resins

Factors affecting depths of cure of visible light-cured composite resins

Factors affecting depths of cure of visible light-cured composite resins

Interchangeabilities of activator lights in polymerization of visible light-cured composite resin

Interchangeabilities of activator lights in polymerization of visible light-cured composite resin

The surface finish of a visible light-cured composite resin

The surface finish of a visible light-cured composite resin

Properties of microfilled and visible light-cured composite resins

Physical and mechanical properties of four commercial micro-filled composite resins, a visible light-cured composite resin, and a conventional composite resin were investigated. Isocap, Isopast, and Superfil were similar in most properties. Compared with Concise, they had lower values of inorganic filler content and modulus of elasticity and higher values of water sorption, depth of indentation, and linear coefficient of thermal expansion. The properties of Silar were between those of Concise and the other microfilled composite resins. Fotofil had lower values of modulus of elasticity, water sorption, and linear coefficient of thermal expansion than Concise.

Pulpal response to a new visible light‐cured composite restorative material: Fotofil®

A new visible light-cured composite resin, Fotofil, has been developed for the esthetic restoration of anterior teeth. The pulpal responses elicited by this material in unlined cavities and cavities lined with Dycal were compared with those elicited by a negative control consisting of modified zinc oxide-eugenol cement Notebec and a silicate cement Syntrex. The pulpal responses were evaluated in the permanent maxillary and mandibular incisors in vervet monkeys using labial Claterial in each monkey. Groups of 10 monkeys were killed at intervals of 2 days, and 2 and 8 weeks after restoration of the teeth. The most severe pulpal responses were elicited by the unlined Fotofil and Syntrex restorations at all three time intervals. The Dycal lined Fotofil restorations elicited a milder pulp response than the Nobetec at 2 days and 2 weeks. No pulpal response was elicited by the latter two materials at 8 weeks. These results clearly showed that Fotofil and Syntrex are irritant to the dental pulp up to 8 weeks. The placement of a Dycal liner beneath Fotofil restorations reduced the pulpal irritation elicited by this material to levels which were lower than those elicited by the Nobetec control at 2 days and 2 weeks.