Elution of leachable components from composites after LED and halogen light irradiation

This study investigated the influence of curing lights and modes on the elution of leachable components from dental composites. Four LED/halogen curing lights (LED-Elipar Freelight [FL], 3M-ESPE and GC e-light [EL], GC; high intensity halogen-Elipar Trilight [TL], 3M-ESPE; very high intensity halogen-Astralis 10 [AS], Ivoclar Vivadent) were selected for this study. Pulse (EL1), continuous (FL1, EL2, TL1), turbo (EL3, AS) and soft-start (FL2, EL4, TL2) curing modes of the various lights were examined. A conventional continuous cure halogen light (Max [MX], Dentsply-Caulk) was used for comparison. Three composite (Z100, 3M-ESPE) specimens (6.5 mm in diameter and 1-mm thick) were made for each curing light-mode combination. After polymerization, the specimens were stored in air at 37 degrees C for 24 hours and incubated in acetonitrile at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. BisGMA and TEGDMA extracts were isolated by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Data were subjected to analysis using one-way ANOVA/Scheffe's post-hoc test and Independent Samples t-test at significance level 0.05. The total monomer (BisGMA and TEGDMA) eluted ranged from 8.75 to 27.97 ppm for FL1 and AS, respectively. Significantly more unreacted monomers were leached from composites cured with all modes of EL and AS when compared to MX. No significant difference in the total monomer eluted was observed between the two modes of FL/TL and MX Although composites cured with EL2 released significantly less monomer than EL1, 3 and 4, no significant difference in the total monomer eluted was observed between the continuous and soft-start modes of FL and TL. The elution of leachable components from composites appears to be curing light specific rather than light source (LED or halogen) and curing mode specific.     

Analysis of the degree of conversion of LED and halogen lights using micro-Raman spectroscopy

This study determined the degree of conversion of two LED (light-emitting diodes) (Elipar FreeLight [FL], 3M ESPE; GC e-Light [EL], GC), a high intensity (Elipar TriLight [TL], 3M ESPE) and a very high intensity (Astralis 10 [AS], Ivoclar Vivadent) halogen light. The degree of conversion of these lights was compared to a conventional halogen light (Max [MX] (control), Dentsply-Caulk). Ten different light curing regimens, including pulse (EL1), continuous (FL1, EL2, TL1), turbo (EL3, AS1) and soft-start (FL2, EL4, TL2) modes of various lights were also investigated. Composite specimens of dimensions 3 x 3 x 2 mm were cured with the 10 different light curing regimens investigated. Micro-Raman spectroscopy was used to determine the degree of conversion at the top and bottom surfaces of a composite restorative (Z100, [3M ESPE]) at 60 minutes post-light polymerization. Five specimens were made for each cure mode. The results were analyzed using ANOVA/Scheffe's post-hoc test and Independent Samples t-tests at significance level 0.05. The degree of conversion ranged from 55.98 +/- 2.50 to 59.00 +/- 2.76% for the top surface and 51.90 +/- 3.36 to 57.28 +/- 1.56% for the bottom surface. No significant difference in degree of conversion was observed for the 10 light curing regimens when compared to MX (control). The curing efficiency of LED lights was comparable to halogen lights regardless of curing modes.     

The effectiveness of cure of LED and halogen curing lights at varying cavity depths

This study compared the effectiveness of cure of two LED (light-emitting diodes) lights (Elipar FreeLight [FL], 3M-ESPE and GC e-Light [EL], GC) to conventional (Max [MX] (control), Dentsply-Caulk), high intensity (Elipar TriLight [TL], 3M-ESPE) and very high intensity (Astralis 10 [AS], Ivoclar Vivadent) halogen lights at varying cavity depths. Ten light curing regimens were investigated. They include: FL1-400 mW/cm2 [40 seconds], FL2-0-400 mW/cm2 [12 seconds] --> 400 mW/cm2 [28 seconds], EL1-750 mW/cm2 [10 pulses x 2 seconds], EL2-350 mW/cm2 [40 seconds], EL3-600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds], EL4-0-600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds] --> 600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds], TL1-800 mW/cm2 [40 seconds], TL2-100-800 mW/cm2 [15 seconds] --> 800 mW/cm2 [25 seconds], AS1-1200 mW/cm2 [10 seconds], MX-400 mW/cm2 [40 seconds]. The effectiveness of cure of the different modes was determined by measuring the top and bottom surface hardness (KHN) of 2-mm, 3-mm and 4-mm thick composite (Z100, [3M-ESPE]) specimens using a digital microhardness tester (n = 5, load = 500 g; dwell time = 15 seconds). Results were analyzed using ANOVA/Scheffe's post-hoc test and Independent Samples t-Test (p < 0.05). For all lights, effectiveness of cure was found to decrease with increased cavity depths. The mean hardness ratio for all curing lights at a depth of 2 mm was found to be greater than 0.80 (the accepted minimum standard). At 3 mm, all halogen lights produced a hardness ratio greater than 0.80 but some LED light regimens did not; and at a depth of 4 mm, the mean hardness ratio observed with all curing lights was less than 0.80. Significant differences in top and bottom KHN values were observed among different curing regimens for the same light and between LED and halogen lights. While curing with most modes of EL resulted in significantly lower top and bottom KHN values than the control (MX) at all depths, the standard mode of FL resulted in significantly higher top and bottom KHN at a depth of 3 mm and 4 mm. The depth of composite cure with LED LCUs was, therefore, product and mode dependent.     

Post-gel shrinkage with different modes of LED and halogen light curing units

This study compared the post-gel shrinkage of two LED (light-emitting diodes) lights (Elipar FreeLight [FL], 3M ESPE; GC e-Light [EL], GC), a high intensity (Elipar TriLight [TL], 3M ESPE) and a very high intensity (Astralis 10 [AS], Ivoclar Vivadent) halogen light to a conventional (Max [MX] (control), Dentsply-Caulk) halogen light. Ten light curing regimens were investigated. These included continuous (FL1, EL2, MX, TL1 and AS1), soft-start (FL2, EL4, TL2), pulse activation (EL1) and turbo (EL3) modes. A strain-monitoring device and test configuration was used to measure the linear polymerization shrinkage of a composite restorative (Z100, [3M ESPE]) during and post-light polymerization up to 60 minutes when cured with the different modes. Five specimens were made for each cure mode. Results were analyzed using ANOVA/Scheffe's post-hoc test and independent sample t-tests at significance level 0.05. Shrinkage associated with the various modes of EL was significantly lower than MX immediately after light polymerization and at one-minute post-light polymerization. No significant difference between MX and the various lights/cure modes was observed at 10, 30 and 60-minutes post-light polymerization. At all time intervals, post-gel shrinkage associated with continuous light curing mode was significantly higher than the soft-start light curing mode for FL and TL.     

Influence of curing lights and modes on cross-link density of dental composites

This study investigated the influence of curing lights and modes on the cross-link density of dental composites. Four LED/halogen curing lights (LED-Elipar Freelight [FL], 3M-ESPE and GC e-light [EL], GC; high intensity halogen-Elipar Trilight [TL], 3M-ESPE; very high intensity halogen-Astralis 10 [AS], Ivoclar Vivadent) were selected for this study. Pulse (EL1), continuous (FL1, EL2, TL1), turbo (EL3, AS) and soft-start (FL2, EL4, TL2) curing modes of the various lights were examined. A conventional, continuous cure halogen light (Max [MX], Dentsply-Caulk) was used for comparison. Six composite (Z100, 3M-ESPE) specimens were made for each light-curing mode combination. After polymerization, the specimens were stored in air at 37 degrees C for 24 hours and subjected to hardness testing using a digital microhardness tester (load=500 g; dwell time=15 seconds). The specimens were then placed in 75% ethanol-water solution at 37 degrees C for 24 hours and post-conditioning hardness was determined. Mean hardness (HK)/change in hardness (deltaHK) was computed and the data subjected to analysis using one-way ANOVA/Scheffe's test and Independent Samples t-test (p<0.05). Softening upon storage in ethanol (deltaHK) was used as a relative indication of cross-link density. Specimens polymerized with AS, TL2 and all modes of both LED lights were significantly more susceptible to softening in ethanol than specimens cured with MX. No significant difference in cross-link density was observed among the various modes of EL and FL. For TL, curing with continuous mode resulted in specimens with significantly higher cross-link density than curing with the soft-start mode.     

Effectiveness of composite cure associated with different curing modes of LED lights

This study compared the effectiveness of cure of two LED (light-emitting diodes) lights (Elipar FreeLight [FL], 3M-ESPE; GC e-Light [EL], GC) to conventional (Max [MX], Dentsply-Caulk [control]), high intensity (Elipar TriLight [TL], 3M-ESPE) and very high intensity (Astralis 10 [AS], Ivoclar Vivadent) halogen lights. The 10 light-curing regimens investigated were: FL1 400 mW/cm2 [40 seconds], FL2 0-400 mW/cm2 [12 seconds] --> 400 mW/cm2 [28 seconds], EL1 750 mW/cm2 [10 pulses x 2 seconds], EL2 350 mW/cm2 [40 seconds], EL3 600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds], EL4 0-600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds] --> 600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds], TL1 800 mW/cm2 [40 seconds], TL2 100-800 mW/cm2 [15 seconds] --> 800 mW/cm2 [25 seconds], AS1 1200 mW/cm2 [10 seconds], MX 400 mW/cm2 [40 seconds]. Effectiveness of cure with the different modes was determined by measuring the top and bottom surface hardness (KHN) of 2-mm thick composite (Z100, [3M-ESPE]) specimens using a digital microhardness tester (n=5, load=500 g; dwell time=15 seconds). Results were analyzed using one-way ANOVA/Scheffe's post-hoc test and Independent Samples t-test (p<0.05). At the top surface, the mean KHN observed with LED lights ranged from 55.42 +/- 1.47 to 68.54 +/- 1.46, while that of halogen lights was 62.64 +/- 1.87 to 73.14 +/- 0.97. At the bottom surface, the mean KHN observed with LED and halogen lights ranged from 46.90 +/- 1.73 to 66.46 +/- 1.18 and 62.26 +/- 1.93 to 70.50 +/- 0.87, respectively. Significant differences in top and bottom KHN values were observed between different curing regimens for the same light, and between LED and halogen lights. Although curing with most modes of EL resulted in significantly lower top and bottom KHN values than the control, no significant difference was observed for the different modes of FL. Hence, the effectiveness of composite cure with LED LCUs is product dependent.     

Comparative depths of cure among various curing light types and methods

This study evaluated the depth of cure associated with commercial LEDs (light-emitting diodes) (Elipar FreeLight [FL], 3M-ESPE; GC e-Light [EL], GC), high intensity (Elipar TriLight [TL], 3M-ESPE) and very high intensity (Astralis 10 [AS], Ivoclar Vivadent) Quartz Tungsten Halogen (QTH) curing lights. Depth of cure of the various lights/curing modes were compared to a conventional QTH light (Max [Mx], Dentsply-Caulk). Ten exposure regimens were investigated: FL1 - 400 mW/cm2 [40 seconds]; FL2 - 0-400 mW/cm2 [12 seconds] --> 400 mW/cm2 [28 seconds]; EL1 - 750 mW/cm2 [10 pulses x 2 seconds], EL2 - 350 mW/cm2 [40 seconds]; EL3 - 600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds]; EL4 - 0 - 600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds] --> 600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds]; TL1 - 800 mW/cm2 [40 seconds]; TL2 - 100- 800 mW/cm2 [15 seconds] --> 800 mW/cm2 [25 seconds]; AS1 - 1200 mW/cm2 [10 seconds]; MX - 400 mW/cm2 [40 seconds]. Depth of cure was determined by penetration, scraping and microhardness techniques. The results were analyzed using one-way ANOVA/Scheffe's post-hoc test and Pearson's correlation at significance level 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. All light curing regimens met the ISO depth of cure requirement of 1.5 mm with the exception of EL1-EL3 with the microhardness technique. Curing with most modes of EL resulted in significantly lower depths of cure than the control [MX]. No significant difference in depth of cure was observed among the control and the two modes of FL. Curing with TL1 resulted in significantly greater depth of cure compared to MX with all testing techniques. No significant difference in depth of cure was observed between the control and AS1 for all testing techniques except for the penetration technique. The depth of composite cure is light unit and exposure mode dependent. Scraping and penetration techniques were found to correlate well but tend to overestimate depth of cure compared to microhardness.     

Composite cure and shrinkage associated with high intensity curing light

This study investigated the effectiveness of cure and post-gel shrinkage of three visible light-cured composite resins (In Ten-S [IT], Ivoclar Vivadent; Z100 [ZO], 3M-ESPE; Tetric Ceram [TC], Ivoclar Vivadent) when polymerized with a very high intensity (1296 +/- 2 mW/cm2) halogen light (Astralis 10, Ivoclar Vivadent) for 10 seconds. Irradiation with a conventional (494 +/- 3 mW/cm2) halogen light (Spectrum, Dentsply) for 40 seconds was used for comparison. The effectiveness of cure was assessed by computing the hardness gradient between the top and bottom surfaces of 2-mm composite specimens after curing. A strain-monitoring device was used to measure the linear polymerization shrinkage associated with the various composites and curing lights. A sample size of five was used for both experiments. Data was analyzed using ANOVA/Scheffe's post-hoc and Independent Samples t-tests at significance level 0.05. Results showed that the effect of the curing method on the effectiveness of cure and shrinkage was material-dependent. Polymerization of IT and TC with Spectrum for 40 seconds resulted in significantly more effective cure than polymerization with Astralis for 10 seconds. Polymerization of ZO with Spectrum for 40 seconds resulted in significantly more shrinkage than polymerization with Astralis for 10 seconds. In view of the substantial time saving, using high intensity lights may be a viable method to polymerize composites.     

Curing efficacy of a new generation high-power LED lamp

This study investigated the curing efficacy of a new generation high-power LED lamp (Elipar Freelight 2 [N] 3M-ESPE). The effectiveness of composite cure with this new lamp was compared to conventional LED/halogen (Elipar Freelight [F], 3M-ESPE; Max [M], Dentsply-Caulk) and high-power halogen (Elipar Trilight [T], 3M-ESPE; Astralis 10 [A], Ivoclar Vivadent) lamps. Standard continuous (NS, FS, TS; MS), turbo (AT) and exponential (NE, FE, TE) curing modes of the various lights were examined. Curing efficacy of the various lights and modes were determined by measuring the top and bottom surface hardness of 2-mm thick composite specimens (Z100, 3M-ESPE) using a digital microhardness tester (n=5; load=500 g; dwell time=15 seconds) one hour after light polymerization. The hardness ratio was computed by dividing HK (Knoops Hardness) of the bottom surface by HK of the top surface. The data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA/Scheffe's test and Independent Samples t-test at significance level 0.05. Results of the statistical analysis were as follows: HK top--E, FE, NE > NS and NE > AT, TS, FS; HK bottom--TE, NE > NS; Hardness ratio--NS > FE and FS, TS > NE. No significant difference in HK bottom and hardness ratio was observed between the two modes of Freelight 2 and Max. Freelight 2 cured composites as effectively as conventional LED/halogen and high-power halogen lamps, even with a 50% reduction in cure time. The exponential modes of Freelight 2, Freelight and Trilight appear to be more effective than their respective standard modes.     

Curing of pit & fissure sealants using Light Emitting Diode curing units

Light Emitting Diode (LED) curing units are attractive to clinicians, because most are cordless and should create less heat within tooth structure. However, questions about polymerization efficacy have surrounded this technology. This research evaluated the adequacy of the depth of cure of pit & fissure sealants provided by LED curing units. Optilux (OP) and Elipar Highlight (HL) high intensity halogen and Astralis 5 (A5) conventional halogen lights were used for comparison. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) curing units were Allegro (AL), LE Demetron I (DM), FreeLight (FL), UltraLume 2(UL), UltraLume 5 (UL5) and VersaLux (VX). Sealants used in the study were UltraSeal XT plus Clear (Uclr), Opaque (Uopq) and Teethmate F-1 Natural (Kclr) and Opaque (Kopq). Specimens were fabricated in a brass mold (2 mm thick x 6 mm diameter) and placed between two glass slides (n=5). Each specimen was cured from the top surface only. One hour after curing, four Knoop Hardness readings were made for each top and bottom surface at least 1 mm from the edge. The bottom to top (B/T) KHN ratio was calculated. Groups were fabricated with 20 and 40-second exposure times. In addition, a group using a 1 mm-thick mold was fabricated using an exposure time of 20 seconds. Differences between lights for each material at each testing condition were determined using one-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls Post-hoc test (alpha=0.05). There was no statistical difference between light curing units for Uclr cured in a 1-mm thickness for 20 seconds or cured in a 2 mm-thickness for 40 seconds. All other materials and conditions showed differences between light curing units. Both opaque materials showed significant variations in B/T KHN ratios dependent upon the light-curing unit.     

Depth of cure and surface microhardness of composite resin cured with blue LED curing lights.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the depth of cure and surface microhardness of Filtek Z250 composite resin (3M-Espe) (shades B1, A3, and C4) when cured with three commercially available light emitting diode (LED) curing lights [E-light (GC), Elipar Freelight (3M-ESPE), 475H (RF Lab Systems)], compared with a high intensity quartz tungsten halogen (HQTH) light (Kerr Demetron Optilux 501) and a conventional quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) lamp (Sirona S1 dental unit). METHODS: The effects of light source and resin shade were evaluated as independent variables. Depth of cure after 40 s of exposure was determined using the ISO 4049:2000 method, and Vickers hardness determined at 1.0 mm intervals. RESULTS: HQTH and QTH lamps gave the greatest depth of cure. The three LED lights showed similar performances across all parameters, and each unit exceeded the ISO standard for depth of cure except GC ELight for shade B1. In terms of shade, LED lights gave greater curing depths with A3 shade, while QTH and HQTH lights gave greater curing depths with C4 shade. Hardness at the resin surface was not significantly different between LED and conventional curing lights, however, below the surface, hardness reduced more rapidly for the LED lights, especially at depths beyond 3 mm. SIGNIFICANCE: Since the performance of the three LED lights meets the ISO standard for depth of cure, these systems appear suitable for routine clinical application for resin curing.     

Polymerization efficiency of different photocuring units through ceramic discs

This study compared the ability of a variety of light sources and exposure modes to polymerize a dual-cured resin composite through ceramic discs of different thicknesses by depth of cure and Vickers microhardness (VHN). Ceramic specimens (360) (Empress 2 [Ivoclar Vivadent], color 300, diameter 4 mm, height 1 or 2 mm) were prepared and inserted into steel molds according to ISO 4049, after which a dual-cured composite resin luting material (Variolink II [Ivoclar Vivadent]) with and without self-curing catalyst was placed. The light curing units used were either a conventional halogen curing unit (Elipar TriLight [3M/ESPE] for 40 seconds), a high-power halogen curing unit (Astralis 10 [Ivoclar Vivadent] for 20 seconds), a plasma arc curing unit (Aurys [Degré K] for 10 seconds or 20 seconds) or different light emitting diode (LED) curing units (Elipar FreeLight I [3M/ESPE] for 40 seconds, Elipar FreeLight II [3M/ESPE] for 20 seconds, LuxOmax [Akeda] for 40 seconds, e-Light [GC] for 12 seconds or 40 seconds). Depth of cure under the ceramic discs was assessed according to ISO 4049, and VHN at 0.5 and 1.0 mm distance from the ceramic disc bottom was determined (ISO 6507-1). Medians and the 25th and 75th percentiles were determined for each group (n=10), and statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney-U-test (p < or = 0.05). The results showed that increasing ceramic disc thickness had a negative effect on the curing depth and hardness of all light curing units, with hardness decreasing dramatically under the 2-mm thick discs using LuxOmax, e-Light (12 seconds) or Aurys (10 seconds or 20 seconds). The use of a self-curing catalyst is recommended over the light-curable portion only, because it produced an equivalent or greater hardness and depth of cure with all light polymerization modes.     

The Knoop hardness of a composite resin polymerized with different curing lights and different modes

AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface hardness of a hybrid composite resin polymerized with different curing lights. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 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. RESULTS: 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.     

Polymerization and polymerization shrinkage stress: fast cure versus conventional cure.

Dentists nowadays have a choice of conventional halogen lights, halogen lights with more sophisticated curing cycles (step-cure, rapid-cure, ramp-cure & pulse-cure), fast halogen lights, laser lights, plasma arc lights (PAC) and, lately, LED lights. While the manufacturers of some of the curing units try to improve on the operational reliability of their lights with a slower initial rate of cure, other manufacturers simply wish to offer as fast a curing time as possible. The conventional approach to cure accepts that sufficient light intensity of at least 400 mW/cm2 at a wavelength of 400-500 nm, and an exposure time of at least 40 seconds is needed to cure a 2-mm layer of composite. When a halogen light with higher or very high intensity is used, alternative curing strategies provide for an initial slower cure to allow flow, and after that a higher-intensity cure to improve the degree of cure. In contrast, in the fast-cure or rapid-cure approach it is suggested that a layer of composite can be cured for only 5- 10 seconds at >2000 mW/cm2. Some go so far as to say that an exposure time of 3 seconds per layer may be enough. This contradictory approach is compounded by the fact that this support for fast cure does not seem to consider the negative consequences. Therefore, to address these concerns, this review discusses the possible effects of a fast cure approach compared to a more conventional approach in polymerization and polymerization shrinkage, and the consequences there-off. Other factors that play an influencing role in polymerization shrinkage stress are also included in the discussion.     

The light-curing mania

In the approximately 25 years that dental restorative resins have been cured by light, there has been constant evolution of and improvement in the curing devices and the resins they cure. During the past decade, curing lights have become very effective. Dentists who have functional halogen, fast halogen or PAC lights may wish to compare their current lights with the new generation of LED lights that are dominating the commercial dental advertising at this time. If the new LED lights offer more than the current light they are using, they might consider changing to an LED. If their current light offers about the same characteristics as the LED light being considered, I do not recommend changing. I anticipate that continued upgrading and improvement in LED lights eventually will make this concept the most used method for curing restorative resin.     

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.     

Comparison of composite curing parameters: effects of light source and curing mode on conversion, temperature rise and polymerization shrinkage

This study analyzed the degree of conversion, temperature increase and polymerization shrinkage of two hybrid composite materials polymerized with a halogen lamp using three illumination modes and a photopolymerization device based on blue light emitting diodes. The degree of conversion of Tetric Ceram (TC) (Ivoclar Vivadent) and Filtek Z 250 (F) (3M/ESPE) was measured by Fourier transformation infrared spectroscopy at the surface and 2-mm depth; temperature rise was measured by digital multimeter, and linear polymerization shrinkage was measured during cure by digital laser interferometry. Composite samples were illuminated by quartz-tungsten-halogen curing unit (QTH) (Astralis 7, Ivoclar Vivadent) under the following modes: "high power" (HH) 40 seconds at 750 mW/cm2, "low power" (HL) 40 seconds at 400 mW/cm2 and "pulse/soft-start" (HP) increasing from 150 to 400 mW/cm2 during 15 seconds followed by 25 seconds pulsating between 400 and 750 mW/cm2 in 2-second intervals and by light emitting diodes (LED) (Lux-o-Max, Akeda Dental) with emitted intensity 10 seconds at 50 mW/cm2 and 30 seconds at 150 mW/cm2. A significantly higher temperature increase was obtained for both materials using the HH curing mode of halogen light compared to the HP and HL modes and the LED curing unit after 40 seconds. Significantly lower temperature values after 10-second illumination were obtained when LED was used compared to all halogen modes. For all curing modes, there was no significant difference in temperature rise between 20 and 40 seconds of illumination. Results for the degree of conversion measurements show that there is a significant difference in the case of illumination of resin composite samples with LED at the surface and 2 mm depth. For polymerization shrinkage, lower values after 40 seconds were obtained using LED compared to QTH.     

Barcoll hardness of different resin-based composites cured by halogen or light emitting diode (LED)

The clinical performance of light curing resin composites is greatly influenced by the quality of the light-curing unit (LCU). Halogen LCUs are commonly used for curing composite materials. However, they have some drawbacks. The development of new, blue, super bright light emitting diodes (LED LCU) of 470-nm wavelength with high light irradiance comes as an alternative to standard halogen LCUs of 450-470-nm wavelengths. This study evaluated the surface hardness of the different resin-based composites (flowable, hybrid and packable resin composites) cured by LED LCU or halogen LCU. A Teflon mold 10-mm in diameter and 2-mm in depth was made to obtain five disk-shaped specimens for each experimental group. Then, the specimens were cured by an LED LCU or halogen LCU for 40 seconds. The hardness of the upper and lower surfaces was measured with a Barcoll hardness-measuring instrument. The statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan test at a p=0.05 significance level. The results of the hardness test indicated that the hardness of resin composites cured by an LED LCU were greater than those cured by a halogen LCU. Additionally, for all resin-based composites, the hardness values for the upper surfaces were higher than the lower surfaces. However, for both results no statistically significant differences were observed (p>0.05).     

Effect of reduced exposure times on the microhardness of nanocomposites polymerized by QTH and second-generation LED curing lights

This study investigated the effectiveness of polymerization of various curing regimes on five nanocomposite restorative materials—Z350, Grandio, Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Ice and Tetric EvoCeram—by utilizing microhardness measurements. Five (n=5) disc-shaped specimens of each material were subjected to one of three curing regimes: curing with a halogen light for 20 seconds, curing with an LED light for 20 seconds and curing with an LED light for 10 seconds. Immediately following curing, hardness measurements were made with a Vickers indenter at five different locations on both the top and bottom surfaces of each disc. The mean for each surface was calculated. Data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey HSD (α=0.05). The results demonstrated that among the Z350 composite samples, top and bottom microhardness values showed no statistical differences when cured with the halogen 20 second or LED 20 second regimes (p>0.05). Comparison of the top and bottom values of discs cured with the LED 10 second regime demonstrated significant differences (p<0.0001). Grandio samples cured with the halogen 20 second regime showed no statistical differences between top and bottom microhardness values (p>0.05); however, the bottom values of Grandio discs cured with the LED 20 second and 10 second regimes were significantly lower when compared with top surface values (p=0.001 and p<0.0001, respectively). Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Ice and Tetric Evo Ceram samples cured with the halogen 20 second regime produced significantly lower bottom microhardness values, while both LED regimes produced top and bottom surfaces that were statistically comparable. The conclusion may be drawn that LED 10 second curing regimes were insufficient to cure Z350 and Grandio, while they were adequate for curing Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Ice and Tetric EvoCeram.     

Microhardness of a Resin Cement Polymerized by Light-Emitting Diode and Halogen Lights through Ceramic

Purpose: This study evaluated the curing efficiency of light-emitting diode (LED) and halogen [quartz tungsten halogens (QTH)] lights through ceramic by determining the surface microhardness of a highly filled resin cement.
Materials and Methods: Resin cement specimens (Variolink Ultra; with and without catalyst) (5-mm diameter, 1-mm thick) were condensed in a Teflon mold. They were irradiated through a ceramic disc (IPS Empress 2, diameter 5 mm, thickness 2 mm) by high-power light-curing units as follows: (1) QTH for 40 seconds (continuous), (2) LED for 20 seconds, and (3) LED for 40 seconds (5-second ramp mode). The specimens in control groups were cured under a Mylar strip. Vickers microhardness was measured on the top and bottom surfaces by a microhardness tester. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a post hoc Bonferroni test at a significance level of p < 0.05.
Results: The mean microhardness values of the top and bottom surfaces for the dual-cured cement polymerized beneath the ceramic by QTH or LED (40 seconds) were significantly higher than that of light-cured cement ( p < 0.05). The top and bottom surface microhardness of dual-cured cement polymerized beneath the ceramic did not show a statistically significant difference between the LED and QTH for 40 seconds ( p > 0.05).
Conclusions: The efficiency of high-power LED light in polymerization of the resin cement used in this study was comparable to the high-power QTH light only with a longer exposure time. A reduced curing time of 20 seconds with high-power LED light for photopolymerizing the dual-cured resin cement under ceramic restorations with a minimum 2-mm thickness is not recommended.