Background: Effective polymerization of the composite resin is essential to obtain long term clinical success and has a great importance obtaining improved mechanical properties. The purpose of this study was to measu...Background: Effective polymerization of the composite resin is essential to obtain long term clinical success and has a great importance obtaining improved mechanical properties. The purpose of this study was to measure the effect of the light intensity of LED and QTH curing devices in relation to the light distances, on the hardness (KHN) of two light cure nano-resin composite. Material and Methods: The top and bottom surfaces of the two nanofill composite specimens were evaluated. Two LED and two QTH light curing devices were used at nine different distances. Light intensity was measured with two radiometers placed at these same distances from the curing tip. 360 pvc dies were prepared with circular cavity 3 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick. The tested materials were placed in each cavity. The different light curing distances were standardized by adding pvc spacers dies at different height matching the different distances. Top and bottom surface microhardness were evaluated with a Micro Hardness Tester in knoop hardness numbers (Kg/mm2). Data were statistically analyzed using: Three-way ANOVA, Tukey and Pearsons test. Results: It was revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in microhardness between the composites (p < 0.001), between the nine distances (p < 0.001) and between the four light curing devices (p < 0.001). Increasing the distance of the light source from composite resin, the light intensity and the microhardness values at the top and bottom surface decrease. LED light curing devices produced a greater microhardness results at the bottom surface of the specimens. The Filtek Ultimate nanocomposite (3 m) showed highest microhardness values on the top and bottom surfaces, polymerized with all four curing devices and all nine distances compared to Empress Direct nano composite (Ivoclar vivadent). Clinical significant: Even with high power LED curing light, the distance between the tip of the light source and the restoration surface should be as close as possible. In this study, Filtek Ultimate showed better results (highest microhardness values) than Empress Direct.展开更多
文摘Background: Effective polymerization of the composite resin is essential to obtain long term clinical success and has a great importance obtaining improved mechanical properties. The purpose of this study was to measure the effect of the light intensity of LED and QTH curing devices in relation to the light distances, on the hardness (KHN) of two light cure nano-resin composite. Material and Methods: The top and bottom surfaces of the two nanofill composite specimens were evaluated. Two LED and two QTH light curing devices were used at nine different distances. Light intensity was measured with two radiometers placed at these same distances from the curing tip. 360 pvc dies were prepared with circular cavity 3 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick. The tested materials were placed in each cavity. The different light curing distances were standardized by adding pvc spacers dies at different height matching the different distances. Top and bottom surface microhardness were evaluated with a Micro Hardness Tester in knoop hardness numbers (Kg/mm2). Data were statistically analyzed using: Three-way ANOVA, Tukey and Pearsons test. Results: It was revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in microhardness between the composites (p < 0.001), between the nine distances (p < 0.001) and between the four light curing devices (p < 0.001). Increasing the distance of the light source from composite resin, the light intensity and the microhardness values at the top and bottom surface decrease. LED light curing devices produced a greater microhardness results at the bottom surface of the specimens. The Filtek Ultimate nanocomposite (3 m) showed highest microhardness values on the top and bottom surfaces, polymerized with all four curing devices and all nine distances compared to Empress Direct nano composite (Ivoclar vivadent). Clinical significant: Even with high power LED curing light, the distance between the tip of the light source and the restoration surface should be as close as possible. In this study, Filtek Ultimate showed better results (highest microhardness values) than Empress Direct.
