The effect of light curing units and modes on cytotoxicity of resin-core systems.
(51/142)
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cytotoxic effects of various resin-based core materials that were cured with three light curing units (LCUs) in different modes on L-929 mouse fibroblast cells over 24 h and 72 h periods. STUDY DESIGN: Eighty-four cylindrical discs (2 mm in thickness and 6 mm in diameter) of each material (Rebilda, Voco; Build-It FR, Pentron; Clearfil DC Core, Kuraray and Bis-core, Bisco) were cured by QTH LCU (soft-up and high-power modes), LED LCU (exponential and standard modes) and PAC LCU (normal and ramp-curing modes). Then the samples were aged for 24 and 72 hours in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium/Ham's F12 (DMEM/F12). After each ageing interval, cytotoxicity of the extracts to cultured fibroblasts (L 929) was measured by MTT assay. The degree of cytotoxicity for each sample was determined according to the reference value represented by the cells with a pure culture medium. Statistical significance was determined by a multifactorial analysis of variance followed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test or independent t tests. RESULTS: Data showed that there are significant differences among resin based core materials, LCUs, curing modes and time factors (p<0.001). The test materials cured with the QTH and LED demonstrated statistically higher cell survival rates when compared with those cured with the PAC (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Differential toxic effects of the resin-based core materials cured with QTH, LED and PAC on the fibroblast cells may prove to be very important when suitable resin-core systems, LCUs and curing modes are used for operative restorations. (+info)
Quantifying light energy delivered to a Class I restoration.
(52/142)
PURPOSE: To measure the amount of light energy that dental students actually deliver to a Class I preparation in a dental mannequin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Approval for the study was obtained from the Dalhousie University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board. Each of 20 third-year dental students light-cured a Class I preparation in tooth 27 in a mannequin head. A photodetector located at the bottom of the cavity preparation measured how much light would be received by a restoration. Each student cured the simulated restoration for 20 seconds using a quartz-tungsten-halogen curing light (Optilux 401). The irradiance received (mW/cm2) was recorded in real time, and the energy per unit area (J/cm2) delivered to the detector by each student was calculated. The students were then given detailed instructions on how to effectively use the curing light, and the experiment was repeated. RESULTS: When the curing light was fixed directly over the tooth, the greatest amount of light energy delivered to the detector in 20 seconds was 13.9 +/- 0.4 J/cm2. Before instruction, the students delivered between 2.0 and 12.0 J/cm2 (mean +/- standard deviation [SD]: 7.9 +/- 2.7 J/cm2). After receiving detailed instructions, the same students delivered between 7.7 and 13.4 J/cm2 (mean +/- SD: 10.0 +/- 1.4 J/cm2). A paired student"s t test showed that instruction resulted in a significant improvement (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although instruction yielded improvements, the mean energy delivered was much less (7.9 J/cm2 before instruction and 10.0 J/cm2 after instruction) than the expected 13.9 J/cm2. To maximize the energy delivered, the operator should wear eye protection, should watch what he or she is doing and should hold the light both close to and perpendicular to the restoration. (+info)
Influence of light-curing units and restorative materials on the micro hardness of resin cements.
(53/142)
Curing efficiency of high-intensity light-emitting diode (LED) devices.
(56/142)
We evaluated the curing efficiency of 4 high-intensity light-emitting diode (LED) devices by assessing percentage of residual C=C (%RDB), surface microhardness (SM), depth of cure (DC), percentage of linear shrinkage-strain (%LS), and percentage of wall-to-wall contraction (%WWC). The light-curing units tested were a QTH light, the Elipar TriLight (3M/ESPE), and 4 LED devices - the Allegro (Denmat), the Bluephase (Ivoclar/Vivadent), the FreeLight2 (3M/ESPE), and The Cure TC-01 (Spring Health Products). The %RDB was measured by microFTIR spectroscopy. Microhardness measurements (Vickers) were performed at the surface (H0) and at depths of 3 mm (H3) and 5 mm (H5) of cylindrical specimens. Depth of cure was expressed as the ratio of microhardness at each depth, relative to the corresponding surface value (H3/H0 and H5/H0). The bonded disc method was used to evaluate %LS. For the %WWC evaluation, cylindrical resin restorations were imaged by high resolution micro-CT and the %WWC was calculated at depths of 0 mm and 2 mm. There were no statistical differences among the LEDs in %RDB or %LS. The Bluephase and Allegro had the highest SM values. As compared with the other LEDs, the Bluephase and The Cure TC-01 had lower values for depth of cure at depths of 3 mm and 5 mm. There were no significant differences in %WWC among the LEDs at either depth, and the QTH had the lowest %WWC at both depths. (+info)