Interaction of LED light with coinitiator-containing composite resins: effect of dual peaks.

Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University, Yangsan 626-870, Republic of Korea.
Journal of dentistry (Impact Factor: 3.2). 07/2012; 40(10):836-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.06.008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recently the colour stability of composite resins has been an issue due to the emphasis on the aesthetics of restored teeth. The purpose of the present study was to investigate how dual-peak LED units affect the polymerization of coinitiator-containing composite resins.
Five composite resins [coinitiator-containing: Aelite LS Posterior (AL), Tetric EvoCeram (TE), and Vit-l-escence (VI); only CQ-containing: Grandio (GD) and Filtek Z350 (Z3)] were light cured using four different light-curing units (LCUs). Among them, Bluephase G2 (BP) and G-light (GL) were dual-peak LED LCUs. Microhardness, polymerization shrinkage, flexural, and compressive properties were measured.
BP and GL had no consistent effect on the microhardness of AL, TE, and VI on the top and bottom surfaces of resin specimens. Among the specimens, AL and VI showed the least (9.86-10.41 μm) and greatest (17.58-19.21 μm) polymerization shrinkage, respectively. However, the effect of BP and GL on the shrinkage of specimens was not consistent. Among the specimens, GD showed the greatest flexural properties [strength (FS) and modulus (FM)] and TE showed the lowest flexural and compressive properties [strength (CS) and modulus (CM)]. In same resin product, maximum FS and CS differences due to the different LCUs were 10.3-21.0% and 3.6-9.2%, respectively. Furthermore, the influences of BP and GL on FS and CS were not consistent.
The tested dual-peak LED LCUs had no consistent synergic effect on the polymerization of coinitiator-containing composite resins as compared with QTH and single-peak LED LCUs.
The dual-peak LED LCUs achieve a similar degree of polymerization in coinitiator-composite resins as QTH and single-peak LED LCUs did. Choice of LCU does not appear to be a determinant of the light curing of coinitiator-composite resins.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: This work aims to review the key factors affecting the polymerization efficiency of light-activated resin-based composites. The different properties and methods used to evaluate polymerization efficiency will also be critically appraised with focus on the developments in dental photopolymer technology and how recent advances have attempted to improve the shortcomings of contemporary resin composites. METHODS: Apart from the classical literature on the subject, the review focused in particular on papers published since 2009. The literature research was performed in Scopus with the terms "dental resin OR dimethacrylate". The list was screened and all papers relevant to the objectives of this work were included. RESULTS: Though new monomer technologies have been developed and some of them already introduced to the dental market, dimethacrylate-based composites still currently represent the vast majority of commercially available materials for direct restoration. The photopolymerization of resin-based composites has been the subject of numerous publications, which have highlighted the major impact of the setting process on material properties and quality of the final restoration. Many factors affect the polymerization efficiency, be they intrinsic; photoinitiator type and concentration, viscosity (co-monomer composition and ratio, filler content) and optical properties, or extrinsic; light type and spectrum, irradiation parameters (radiant energy, time and irradiance), curing modes, temperature and light guide tip positioning. SIGNIFICANCE: : This review further highlights the apparent need for a more informative approach by manufacturers to relay appropriate information in order for dentists to optimize material properties of resin composites used in daily practice.
    Dental materials: official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials 11/2012; · 2.88 Impact Factor


Available from
Jun 2, 2014