The effects of light intensity and method of exposure on the hardness of four light-cured dental restorative materials
Author(s)
Oberholzer, Theunis G.
Grobler, Sias R.
Pameijer, Cornelis H.
Hudson, Athol P. G.
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2003
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
AIM: To determine the microhardness of several light-curing dental restorative materials at the top surface as well as at a depth of 2mm. METHODS: Comparisons were made using different light sources. Four groups of five specimens each (3mm diameter, 2mm thick) of Z250 (composite), Filtek Flow (flowable composite), Dyract AP (compomer) and Dyract Flow (flowable compomer) were cured using different methods of exposure. The curing lights used were a Spectrum 800 halogen curing light at settings of 800 mW/cm2 and 400 mW/cm2 and an Optilux 501 ramping light. Vickers microhardness tests were performed at the top surface and at the ...
View more >AIM: To determine the microhardness of several light-curing dental restorative materials at the top surface as well as at a depth of 2mm. METHODS: Comparisons were made using different light sources. Four groups of five specimens each (3mm diameter, 2mm thick) of Z250 (composite), Filtek Flow (flowable composite), Dyract AP (compomer) and Dyract Flow (flowable compomer) were cured using different methods of exposure. The curing lights used were a Spectrum 800 halogen curing light at settings of 800 mW/cm2 and 400 mW/cm2 and an Optilux 501 ramping light. Vickers microhardness tests were performed at the top surface and at the bottom surface. RESULTS: Significant differences in microhardness between the top and bottom surfaces were demonstrated for all materials and with all light sources (p<0.05). The different exposures also produced significant differences (p<0.05). The light source used had less of an effect on the hardness of the compomers than the composites. CONCLUSIONS: Effective hardness ratios between the top and bottom surfaces were achieved with all three curing protocols. The effect of total energy application must be taken into account before assumptions can be made as to the effect on hardness using different exposure methods.
View less >
View more >AIM: To determine the microhardness of several light-curing dental restorative materials at the top surface as well as at a depth of 2mm. METHODS: Comparisons were made using different light sources. Four groups of five specimens each (3mm diameter, 2mm thick) of Z250 (composite), Filtek Flow (flowable composite), Dyract AP (compomer) and Dyract Flow (flowable compomer) were cured using different methods of exposure. The curing lights used were a Spectrum 800 halogen curing light at settings of 800 mW/cm2 and 400 mW/cm2 and an Optilux 501 ramping light. Vickers microhardness tests were performed at the top surface and at the bottom surface. RESULTS: Significant differences in microhardness between the top and bottom surfaces were demonstrated for all materials and with all light sources (p<0.05). The different exposures also produced significant differences (p<0.05). The light source used had less of an effect on the hardness of the compomers than the composites. CONCLUSIONS: Effective hardness ratios between the top and bottom surfaces were achieved with all three curing protocols. The effect of total energy application must be taken into account before assumptions can be made as to the effect on hardness using different exposure methods.
View less >
Journal Title
International Dental Journal
Volume
53
Issue
4
Publisher URI
Subject
Dentistry not elsewhere classified
Dentistry