• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.109-115
• /
• 2000

This study was designed to evaluate the microhardness of restorative composite resin and dual-cured composite resin cement which were light cured through the 1.5mm thickness composite overlay. For restorative materials, Z100 and Tetric Ceram were used. For dual cured composite cements, Variolink II((VL II) of three consistency (low, high, ultra high) were used. To determine the optimal microhardness of Z100, Tetric Ceram and Variolink II, each material was packed into the 1mm thickness teflon mold without composite overlay and light cured for 60 seconds. Then the microhardnesses of each sample were measured, averaged and regarded as optimal hardness of each material. To evaluate the microhardness of restorative composite resin and dual-cured composite resin cement which were light cured through the 1.5mm thickness composite overlay, the composites were packed into 1mm thickness teflon mold, coverd with celluloid strip, and then precured composite overlay which was made of Targis(Ivoclar/Vivadent, Liechtenstein) was positioned. 2 types of visible light curing machine, the power density of one of which was 400$mW/cm^2$ and the other was 900$mW/cm^2$, and one type of argon laser were used to cure the restorative composite and dual cured cement. For each group, 10 sample were assigned. The light curing tip was positioned over the composite overlay and light cured for 1min., 2min. or 3min with visible light curing machine or 15sec, 30 sec, 45sec, and 60 sec with argon laser. The Vickers hardnesses of upper and lower surface of Z100, Tetric Ceram, and 3 types of VL II cement were measured. When the 900 $mW/cm^2$ curing light was used, 2min. was needed for optimal curing of Z100 and Tetric Ceram. Variolink II did not be cured optimally even though the curing time was extended to 3min. When 400$mW/cm^2$ curing light was used, 3min. was necessary for Z100, whereas 3min. was not enough for Tetric Ceram. Variolink II was not cured optimally even though the curing time was extended to 3min. When argon laser was used, Z100, Tetric Ceram and Variolink II were not cured optimally in 60 seconds.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.642-651
• /
• 1996

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between monomer compositions and the changes in the degree of conversion in the various layers of composites after additional heat curing. Four types of composites and 3 types of inlay ovens were used in this study. Composite was placed in a 4-mm thick teflon mold, and light cured from the top for 60 seconds. Ten samples were prepared for each composite ; 5 of these were additionally heat cured in an inlay oven as the manufacturer recommended. After light curing or light and heat curing, the samples were sectioned into four parts and assigned to groups A, B, C, or D according to their distance from the light source. These sections were then thinned to 50-$70{\mu}m$, and these wafers were analyzed with a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer(FI-IR) to determine the degree of conversion. A standard baseline technique was used to calculate the degree of conversion. $^{13}C$ NMR spectra of bis-GMA, TEGDMA and bis-EMA, were acquired using a Varian Gemini spectrometer operated at 200 MHz. $CDCl_3$ solvent was used for qualitative analysis. The degree of conversion was affected by bis-GMA : TEGDMA ratio but it seemed to be also affected by other factors. When the composites were heat cured, significant increases in the degree of conversion were noted throughout the samples, but the amount of increase differed between materials. Thus, clinical performance of a heat-treated composite inlay may be different depending on materials.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.169-179
• /
• 2007

This study was to compare the microshear bond strength $({\mu}SBS)$ of light- and chemically cured composites to enamel coupled with four 2-step self-etch adhesives and also to evaluate the incompatibility between 2-step self-etch adhesives and chemically cured composite resin. Crown segments of extracted human molars were cut mesiodistally, and a 1 mm thickness of specimen was made. They were assigned to four groups by adhesives used: SE group (Clearfil SE Bond) AdheSE group (AdheSE), Tyrian group (Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus), and Contax group (Contax) Each adhesive was applied to a cut enamel surface as per the manufacturer's instruction. Light-cured (Filtek Z250) or chemically cured composite (Luxacore Smartmix Dual) was bonded to the enamel of each specimen using a Tygon tube. After storage in distilled water for 24 hours, the bonded specimens were subjected to ${\mu}SBS$ testing with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The mean ${\mu}SBS$ (n=20 for each group) was statistically compared using two-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD, and t test at 95% level. Also the interface of enamel and composite was evaluated under FE-SEM. The results of this study were as follows ; 1. The ${\mu}SBS$ of the SE Bond group to the enamel was significantly higher than that of the AdheSE group, the Tyrian group, and the Contax group in both the light-cured and the chemically cured composite resin (p < 0.05). 2. There was not a significant difference among the hdheSE group, the Tyrian group, and the Contax group in both the light-cured and the chemically cured composite resin. 3. The ${\mu}SBS$ of the light-cured composite resin was significantly higher than that of the chemically cured composite resin when same adhesive was applied to the enamel (p < 0.05). 4. The interface of enamel and all 2-step self-etch adhesives showed close adaptation, and so the incompatibility of the chemically cured composite resin did not show.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.291-297
• /
• 2011

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to know the availability of three photosensitizers, CQ, PD, DA, as a photosensitizer of dental resin composite. We want to know abortion band around visible light region for the using potential possibility as a photosensitizer for visible light cured dental composite resin. And I studied to know the relative photodecomposition ratio of three photosensitizers with or without photoinitiator, DAEM. Methods: The photodecomposition of three photosensitizers were studied by UV absorption spectroscopy in ethanol and determined by same instrument with irradiation time for relative photodecomposition. In order to study the effect of amine on photodecomposition was added the DAEM in the photosensitizer solution and the relative rate was measured by the same procedure with aove mentioned. Results: The all of three photosensitizers are absorbed around visible light region. The relative rate of decrease in absorbance incereased in the order: CQ < BD < PD. The effect of DAEM on the photodecomposition of the photosensitizers was appeared different results without DAEM. The photodecomposition rate of PD and DA decreased somewhat with the addition of amine, while that of CQ increased. The rtealtive photodecomposition rate increased in the oprder: BD ${\leq}$ CQ < PD with the addition of amine, but the differnce was not significant. Conclusion: PD and DA like CQ gives to the possibility of use as a photosensitizer for visible light cured dental composite resin by absorption around visible light region and photodecomposition in the maximum absorption wavelength. And it is showed that PD and DA are not effective decomposed with amine initiator, DAEM but CQ decomposed with DAEM effectively. This result may be due to a different mechanism operating for the decomposition of photosensitizers in the presence of amine.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Precision Engineering Conference
• /
• 2004.10a
• /
• pp.1057-1060
• /
• 2004

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 with 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 II LC. On the morphological observations by SEM, the large crack formation on the sliding track of Fuji II LC specimen was the greatest among all resin composites. Dyract AP showed the least 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 a curing unit for composite resin restorations.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.261-270
• /
• 2001

This study was performed to evaluate wear characteristics of light-cured composites when opposed by human enamel. Seven light-cured restorative composites were selected and enamel cusps sectioned from premolars. All samples were stored in distilled water at $37^{\circ}C$ for 10 days. 68.6 N of weight was loaded during the test. The measurements of vertical loss of enamel cusps, weight loss and volume loss of composites, and SEM observations of the polished and abraded surfaces were made after 30,000 cycles. The results obtained were summarized as follows; 1. The highest hardness value of 70.4 was observed in the Spectrum group and the lowest value of 19.8 was observed in the Heliomolar group. Results of Tukey test showed that an overall significant difference was indicated except the Spectrum, Z100 and Clearfil AP-X groups(p<0.05). 2. Enamel showed the good abrasion resistance against the Heliomolar group of microfilled composite and the Palpique Toughwell group containing the submicron hybrid type spherical fillers. 3. The abrasive wear resistance of hybrid composites was improved with the decrease of mean particle size and hybrid of submicron particle fillers. 4. SEM observation of worn surfaces revealed the protrusion, attrition and missing of fillers, cracks developing and delamination in the matrix.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.43 no.2
• /
• pp.22.1-22.9
• /
• 2018

Objectives: To evaluate and compare light-transmittance in dental tissues and dental composite restorations using the incremental double-layer technique with varying layer thickness. Materials and Methods: B1-colored natural teeth slabs were compared to dental restoration build-ups with A2D and B1E-colored nanofilled, supra-nanofilled, microfilled, and microhybrid composites. The enamel layer varied from 0.3, 0.5, or 1.2 mm thick, and the dentin layer was varied to provide a standardized 3.7 mm overall sample thickness (n = 10). All increments were light-cured to $16J/cm^2$ with a multi-wave LED (Valo, Ultradent). Using a spectrophotometer, the samples were irradiated by an RGB laser beam. A voltmeter recorded the light output signal to calculate the light-transmittance through the specimens. The data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance followed by the post hoc Tukey's test (p = 0.05). Results: Mean light-transmittance observed at thicker final layers of enamel were significantly lower than those observed at thinner final layers. Within 1.2 mm final enamel resin layer (FERL) thickness, all composites were similar to the dental tissues, with exception of the nanofilled composite. However, within 0.5 mm FERL thickness, only the suprananofilled composite showed no difference from the dental tissues. Within 0.3 mm FERL thickness, none of the composites were similar to the dental tissues. Conclusions: The supra-nanofilled composite had the most similar light-transmittance pattern when compared to the natural teeth. However, for other composites, thicker FERL have a greater chance to match the light-transmittance of natural dental tissues.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.51.1-51.13
• /
• 2021

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of improper positioning single-peak and multi-peak lights on color change, microhardness of bottom and top, and surface topography of bulk fill and incremental composites after artificial aging for 1 year. Materials and Methods: Bulk fill and incremental composites were cured using multi-peak and single-peak light-emitting diode (LED) following 4 clinical conditions: (1) optimal condition (no angulation or tip displacement), (2) tip-displacement (2 mm), (3) slight tip angulation (α = 20°) and (4) moderate tip angulation (α = 35°). After 1-year of water aging, the specimens were analyzed for color changes (ΔE), Vickers hardness, surface topography (Ra, Rt, and Rv), and scanning electron microscopy. Results: For samples cured by single-peak LED, the improper positioning significantly increases the color change compared to the optimal position regardless of the type of composite (p < 0.001). For multi-peak LED, the type of resin composite and the curing condition displayed a significant effect on ΔE (p < 0.001). For both LEDs, the Vickers hardness and bottom/top ratio of Vickers hardness were affected by the type of composite and the curing condition (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The bulk fill composite presented greater resistance to wear, higher color stability, and better microhardness than the incremental composite when subjected to improper curing. The multi-peak LED improves curing under improper conditions compared to single-peak LED. Prevention of errors when curing composites requires the attention of all personnel involved in the patient's care once the clinical relevance of the appropriate polymerization reflects on reliable long-term outcomes.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.199-206
• /
• 2001

The purpose of study was to compare the plasma arc light with the halogen light in compostie resin curing. Three composite resin materials(Z-100, 3M, USA; Tetric Ceram, Vivadent, Liechtenstein; SureFil, Dentsply, USA) were filled in the teflon molds (4mm in diameter and 2, 3, 4, 5mm in thickness) and cured with either the conventional low-intensity light curing unit with a halogen lamp (Optilux 360, Demetron, U.S.A.) for duration of 40 seconds or with the high-intensity light curing unit with a plasma arc lamp (Flipo, Lokki, France) for duration of 3, 6, and 9 seconds. The intensity of halogen light was about $370mW/cm^2$ and that of plasma light was about $1,900mW/cm^2$. After one week, the surface hardnesses of both the top and the bottom of the resin samples were measured with a microhardness tester(MXT70, Matsuzawa, Japan). There were significant differences in the hardness between the top and the bottom of the resin samples except the 2mm thickness samples cured by halogen light for 40s or by plasma light for 9s. There was no significant difference between the hardness values of the top surfaces of the thickness groups. The hardness values of the bottom surfaces decreased as the curing time decreased and as the thickness of resin samples increased, and the three kinds of resin composites showed similar patterns. The results suggest that the halogen light for 40 seconds might be able to cure greater depth of resin composites than the plasma light for 3, 6, or 9 seconds.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.27 no.6
• /
• pp.561-568
• /
• 2002

Purpose of this research is estimating polymerization depth of different source of light. XL 3000 for halo-gen light, Apollo 95E for plasma arc light and Easy cure for LED light source were used in this study. Different shade (B1 & A3) resin composites (Esthet-X, Dentsply, U.S.A.) were used to measure depth of cure. 1, 2, and 3 mm thick samples were light cured for three seconds, six seconds or 10 seconds with Apollo 95E and they were light cured with XL-3000 and Easy cure for 10 seconds, 20 seconds, or 40 seconds. Vicker's hardness test carried out after store samples for 24 hours in distilled water. Results were as following. 1. Curing time increases from al1 source of lights, oui$.$ing depth increased(p<0.05). 2. Depth (that except 1mm group and 2mm group which lighten to halogen source of light) deepens in all groups, Vickers hardness decreased(p<0.05). 3. Vicker's hardness of A3 shade composite was lower in all depths more than B1 shade composites in group that do polymerization for 10 seconds and 20 seconds using halogen source of light(p<0.05), but group that do polymerization lot 40 seconds did not show difference(p>0.05). 4. Groups that do polymerization using Plasma arc and LED source of light did not show Vicker's hardness difference according to color at surface and 1mm depth(p>0.05), but showed difference according to color at 2mm and 3mm depth(p<0.05). The results showed that Apollo 95E need more polymerization times than manufacturer's recommendation (3 seconds), and Easy cure need polymerization time of XL-3000 at least.