Curing efficiency of three different curing modes at different distances for four composites

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of the different curing distances with three polymerization modes in terms of the surface microhardness of four resin composites as a function of energy density. A hybrid resin composite and flowable composite from each of two manufacturers were evaluated. The specimens were polymerized with one of two light-curing units: 1) Mini LED AutoFocus (1500 mW/cm 2) with a fast curing mode, for which two polymerization regimens were used: a) one Auto- Focus function cycle and b) two AutoFocus function cycles, and 2) LEDemetron I (950 mW/ cm 2) with a 20-second curing time. Polymerization was performed with the curing tip at a distance of 0 mm, 3.0 mm, ±.0 mm, and 9.0 mm from the top surface of the specimen, and the power density of each light source was measured with a spectrophotometer. All specimens were stored in distilled water in a light-proof container at 378C for 24 hours, and their top and bottom surface Knoop hardness numbers were determined. Microhardness data were submitted to two-way analysis of variance and multiple comparisons with a Tukey test. All statistical analyses were performed at a significance level of 0.05. Though the curing lights tested exhibited a decrease in power density with distance, the rate and extent of power density loss were not the same. The polymerization mode and curing tip distance had a significant effect on the composite microhardness. There was also a significant interaction among polymerization mode, curing tip distance, and microhardness. The curing ability of the three polymerization modes was ranked in terms of the hardness percent values: the LEDemetron I> two cycles of the Mini LED AutoFocus > one cycle of the Mini LED AutoFocus.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)362-371
Number of pages10
JournalOperative Dentistry
Volume36
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2011

Fingerprint

Polymerization
Light
Composite Resins
Hardness
Analysis of Variance
Water

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Curing efficiency of three different curing modes at different distances for four composites. / Zhu, S.; Platt, Jeffrey.

In: Operative Dentistry, Vol. 36, No. 4, 07.2011, p. 362-371.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{03f16476963040898f675645dd9e2203,
title = "Curing efficiency of three different curing modes at different distances for four composites",
abstract = "This study investigated the influence of the different curing distances with three polymerization modes in terms of the surface microhardness of four resin composites as a function of energy density. A hybrid resin composite and flowable composite from each of two manufacturers were evaluated. The specimens were polymerized with one of two light-curing units: 1) Mini LED AutoFocus (1500 mW/cm 2) with a fast curing mode, for which two polymerization regimens were used: a) one Auto- Focus function cycle and b) two AutoFocus function cycles, and 2) LEDemetron I (950 mW/ cm 2) with a 20-second curing time. Polymerization was performed with the curing tip at a distance of 0 mm, 3.0 mm, ±.0 mm, and 9.0 mm from the top surface of the specimen, and the power density of each light source was measured with a spectrophotometer. All specimens were stored in distilled water in a light-proof container at 378C for 24 hours, and their top and bottom surface Knoop hardness numbers were determined. Microhardness data were submitted to two-way analysis of variance and multiple comparisons with a Tukey test. All statistical analyses were performed at a significance level of 0.05. Though the curing lights tested exhibited a decrease in power density with distance, the rate and extent of power density loss were not the same. The polymerization mode and curing tip distance had a significant effect on the composite microhardness. There was also a significant interaction among polymerization mode, curing tip distance, and microhardness. The curing ability of the three polymerization modes was ranked in terms of the hardness percent values: the LEDemetron I> two cycles of the Mini LED AutoFocus > one cycle of the Mini LED AutoFocus.",
author = "S. Zhu and Jeffrey Platt",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
doi = "10.2341/09-245-L",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "362--371",
journal = "Operative Dentistry",
issn = "0361-7734",
publisher = "Indiana University School of Dentistry",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Curing efficiency of three different curing modes at different distances for four composites

AU - Zhu, S.

AU - Platt, Jeffrey

PY - 2011/7

Y1 - 2011/7

N2 - This study investigated the influence of the different curing distances with three polymerization modes in terms of the surface microhardness of four resin composites as a function of energy density. A hybrid resin composite and flowable composite from each of two manufacturers were evaluated. The specimens were polymerized with one of two light-curing units: 1) Mini LED AutoFocus (1500 mW/cm 2) with a fast curing mode, for which two polymerization regimens were used: a) one Auto- Focus function cycle and b) two AutoFocus function cycles, and 2) LEDemetron I (950 mW/ cm 2) with a 20-second curing time. Polymerization was performed with the curing tip at a distance of 0 mm, 3.0 mm, ±.0 mm, and 9.0 mm from the top surface of the specimen, and the power density of each light source was measured with a spectrophotometer. All specimens were stored in distilled water in a light-proof container at 378C for 24 hours, and their top and bottom surface Knoop hardness numbers were determined. Microhardness data were submitted to two-way analysis of variance and multiple comparisons with a Tukey test. All statistical analyses were performed at a significance level of 0.05. Though the curing lights tested exhibited a decrease in power density with distance, the rate and extent of power density loss were not the same. The polymerization mode and curing tip distance had a significant effect on the composite microhardness. There was also a significant interaction among polymerization mode, curing tip distance, and microhardness. The curing ability of the three polymerization modes was ranked in terms of the hardness percent values: the LEDemetron I> two cycles of the Mini LED AutoFocus > one cycle of the Mini LED AutoFocus.

AB - This study investigated the influence of the different curing distances with three polymerization modes in terms of the surface microhardness of four resin composites as a function of energy density. A hybrid resin composite and flowable composite from each of two manufacturers were evaluated. The specimens were polymerized with one of two light-curing units: 1) Mini LED AutoFocus (1500 mW/cm 2) with a fast curing mode, for which two polymerization regimens were used: a) one Auto- Focus function cycle and b) two AutoFocus function cycles, and 2) LEDemetron I (950 mW/ cm 2) with a 20-second curing time. Polymerization was performed with the curing tip at a distance of 0 mm, 3.0 mm, ±.0 mm, and 9.0 mm from the top surface of the specimen, and the power density of each light source was measured with a spectrophotometer. All specimens were stored in distilled water in a light-proof container at 378C for 24 hours, and their top and bottom surface Knoop hardness numbers were determined. Microhardness data were submitted to two-way analysis of variance and multiple comparisons with a Tukey test. All statistical analyses were performed at a significance level of 0.05. Though the curing lights tested exhibited a decrease in power density with distance, the rate and extent of power density loss were not the same. The polymerization mode and curing tip distance had a significant effect on the composite microhardness. There was also a significant interaction among polymerization mode, curing tip distance, and microhardness. The curing ability of the three polymerization modes was ranked in terms of the hardness percent values: the LEDemetron I> two cycles of the Mini LED AutoFocus > one cycle of the Mini LED AutoFocus.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80055096814&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80055096814&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2341/09-245-L

DO - 10.2341/09-245-L

M3 - Article

C2 - 21834705

AN - SCOPUS:80055096814

VL - 36

SP - 362

EP - 371

JO - Operative Dentistry

JF - Operative Dentistry

SN - 0361-7734

IS - 4

ER -