The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2007 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effect of Two Light-emitting Diode (LED) and One Halogen Curing Light on the Microleakage of Class V Flowable Composite Restorations

Yonca Korkmaz, Nuray Attar

Citation Information : Korkmaz Y, Attar N. Effect of Two Light-emitting Diode (LED) and One Halogen Curing Light on the Microleakage of Class V Flowable Composite Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8 (2):80-88.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-8-2-80

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-05-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2007; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

The disadvantages of light cured composite resin materials with respect to microleakage are predominantly a result of polymerization shrinkage upon curing. It has been shown curing methods play a significant role in polymerization shrinkage of light-cured composite resins. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of light-emitting diode (LED) light curing units (LCUs) compared with a halogen LCU on microleakage of three different flowable composites using self-etch adhesives.

Methods and Materials

A total of 63 extracted human premolars were prepared with standardized Class V cavity preparations on the buccal and lingual surfaces of each tooth. The occusal margin of the cavities was located on the enamel and the gingival margin was on dentin. Teeth were randomly assigned to three groups of 21 teeth each as follows: Group 1: Adper Prompt L-Pop + Filtek Flow (3M ESPE); Group 2: AdheSE + Tetric Flow (Ivoclar, Vivadent); and Group 3: Clearfil Protect Bond + Clearfil Protect Liner F (Kuraray Medical Inc.). All the groups were subdivided into three groups according to the curing lights used (n=7). Two LED LCUs, Elipar FreeLight and Elipar FreeLight 2 (3M ESPE), and one halogen-based LCU, Hilux Expert (Benlioglu), were used. All teeth were then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye solution for 24 hours after thermocycling (500 cycles; between 5°C to 55°C). The teeth then were longitudinally sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope (40X magnification) by two examiners. The degree of dye penetration was recorded separately for enamel and dentin. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests with the Bonferroni correction.

Results

No statistically significant differences in microleakage were observed between groups either on enamel or dentin (p>0.05).

Conclusion

With the limitation of this in vitro study, the differences in microleakage between LCUs used were not statistically significantly different. Elipar Free Light 2 reduces curing time which can be considered as an advantage.

Citation

Attar N, Korkmaz Y. Effect of Two Light-emitting Diode (LED) and One Halogen Curing Light on the Microleakage of Class V Flowable Composite Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 February;(8)2:080-088.

PDF Share
  1. Effect of LED curing on the microleakage, shear bond strength and surface hardness of a resin-based composite restoration. Biomater 2005;26:3981-3986.
  2. Efficacy testing of visible-light-curing- units. Oper Dent 1994;19:47-52.
  3. In-vitro pulp chamber temperature rise during composite resin polymerization with various light curing sources. Dent Mater 1999;15:275-281.
  4. Effect of a LED versus halogen light cure polymerization on the curing characteristics of three composite resins. Am J Dent 2003;16:323-328.
  5. Blue light emitting diodes╌another method of light curing? Br Dent J 1995;178:169.
  6. Optical power outputs, spectra and dental composite depths of cure, obtained with blue light emitting diode (LED) and halogen light curing units (LCUs). Br Dent J 2002;193:459-463.
  7. A comparison of polymerization by light-emitting diode and halogen-based lightcuring units. J Am Dent Assoc 2002;133:335-341.
  8. Effect of irradiation type (LED or QTH) on photo-activated composite shrinkage strain kinetics, temperature rise, and hardness. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110:471-479.
  9. The effectiveness of cure of LED and halogen curing lights at varying cavity depths. Oper Dent 2003;28:707-715.
  10. Influence of new light curing units and bonding agents on the microleakage of Class V composite resin restorations. Am J Dent 2003;16:409-413.
  11. Dentin bonding–questions for the new millennium. J Adhes Dent 1999;1:191-209.
  12. Bond strengths and SEM evaluation of Clearfil Liner Bond 2. Am J Dent 1995;8:289-293.
  13. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding. Oper Dent 1999;24:172-180.
  14. Effects of a self-etching primer on enamel shear bond strengths and SEM morphology. Am J Dent 1997;10:141-146.
  15. Inter-crystallite nanoretention of self-etching adhesives at enamel imaged by transmission electron microscopy. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110:464-470.
  16. Characterization of firstgeneration flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:567-577.
  17. The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1999;23:123-130.
  18. Flowable resin composites as “filled adhesives”: literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence Int 1999;30:249-257.
  19. The effect of flowable composite resins as gingival increments on the microleakage of posterior resin composites. Oper Dent 2004;29:162-167.
  20. Influence of curing lights and modes on cross-link density of dental composites. Oper Dent 2004;29:410-415.
  21. Physical properties and gap formation of light-cured composites with and without ‘softstart-polymerization’. J Dent 1997;25:321-330.
  22. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res 1987;66:1636-1639.
  23. Effect of composite type, light intensity, configuration factor and laser polymerization on polymerization contraction forces. Am J Dent 1997;10:88-96.
  24. Factors affecting cure of visible light activated composites. Int Dent J 1985;35:218-225.
  25. Relationship between shade and depth of cure for light-activated dental composite resins. Dent Mater 1986;2:80-84.
  26. Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 1990;69:1240-1243.
  27. Elimintion of polymerization stress at the margins of posterior resin restortions A new restoration technigue. Quintessence Int 1986;17:777-784.
  28. Effect on bonding of curing through dentin. Acta Odontol Scand 1991;49:317-320.
  29. Marginal adaptation of Class II composite composite fillings :quided polymeriztion vs reduced light intensity. J Adhes Dent 1999;1:31-39.
  30. Adhesive bonding of various materials to hard tooth tissues: forces developing in composite materials during hardening. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;106:475-477.
  31. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res 1984;63:1396-1399.
  32. Microleakage of Class V composites using different placement and curing techniques: an in vitro study. Am J Dent 2002;15:244-247.
  33. Bacterial leakage around dental restorations: its effect on the dental pulp. J Oral Pathol 1982;11:439-450.
  34. Does an incremental filling technique reduce polymerization shrinkage stresses. J Dent Res 1996;75:871-878.
  35. Effect of a surface sealant on microleakage of Class V restorations. Am J Dent 1996;9:133-136.
  36. Microleakage of class V composite restorations with different visible light curing methods. J Dent Res 1999;78:155 (Abstr 397).
  37. Effects of finishing/polishing techniques on microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations Oper Dent 2003;28:36-41.
  38. Light curing╌an update. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2002;23:889-892.
  39. Polymerization shrinkage of visible-light-cured composites. Oper Dent 2000;25:98-103.
  40. Three different methods to evaluate microleakage of packable composites in Class II restorations. Oper Dent. 2003;28:453-460.
  41. Biodegradation of dental composites/glassionomer cements. Adv Dental Res 1992;6:50-54.
  42. Bond strength and microleakage of current dentine adhesives. Dental Mater 1994;10:253-258.
  43. Posterior composite resin restorative-clinical considerations. In:Vanherie G, Smith DC, eds. Posterior Composite Resin Dental Restorative materials. St Paul 3M Co: Peter Szulc Publishing Co, Netherlands 1985:455.
  44. A survey of output intensity and potential for depth of cure among light-curing units in clinical use. J Dent 1999;27:235-241.
  45. Effect of LED curing on microleakage and microhardness of Class V resin-based composite restorations. Int Dent J 2004;54:15-20.
  46. Dentin bond strength of self-etching primers/adhesives. Oper Dent 2005;30:63-68.
  47. Dentin bonding as function of dentin structure. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46:277-301.
  48. Clinical performance of self-etch adhesives at 18 months. Am J Dent 2005;18:135-140.
  49. Flow, strength, stiffness and radiopacity of flowable resin composites. J Can Dent Assoc. 2003;69:516-521.
  50. Microleakage study of flowable composite resin systems. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000;21:705-708.
  51. Clinical considerations of microleakage. J Endod 1990;16:70-77.
  52. The effect of polishing systems on microleakage of tooth colored restoratives: Part 2 Composite and polyasid- modified composite resins J Oral Rehabil 2000; 27: 205-210.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.