IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of Curing Distances on the Bulk-fill Composites
Objectives: To compare and evaluate the effect of curing distances on the polymerization of several bulk-fill composites at clinically relevant distances using two different curing lights.
Methods: Sample groups (n=16) of composites from Group 1[Experimental Flow (Dentsply Caulk)], Group 2[Experimental Posterior Bulkfill (Dentsply Caulk)], Group 3[Experimental posterior universal (Dentsply Caulk)], Group 4[SonicFillTM (Kerr)], Group 5[Surefil SDR® (Dentsply Caulk)], Group 6[Tetric EvoCeram Bulkfill® (Ivoclar Vivadent)] were placed in custom molds and light cured at distances of 0, 3, and 5mm with the help of the Marc resin calibrator using the ISO 4049 test method. The remaining hard composite length was measured with a digital micrometer and the value was divided by two per ISO 4049 protocol. Each sub-group (n=8) tested two different curing lights: Light 1[DemiTM Ultra Plus (Kerr)] and Light 2[SmartLite Focus (Dentsply Caulk)]. Analysis was conducted by one-way ANOVA and Tukey test at 95% confidence interval. Significance was determined with p<0.05.
Results: Among bulk-fills with the light at 0 mm distance, groups 1, 2, and 5 had a statistically significant greater mean of average curing depth than groups 4 and 6. Group 5 had the highest average mean curing depth while group 4 showed the lowest mean of the bulk-fills(Table 1). The depth of cure had the largest drop when comparing the light source from 0mm to 5mm and the smallest decrease when comparing the light source from 3mm to 5mm(Table 2).
Conclusions: Among bulk-fills, groups 1, 2, and 5 had higher curability than groups 4 and 6. While group 3, the control group, was statistically different from all other groups, with a lower mean. This was as expected since it is not bulk-fill composite. The depth of cure based on distance showed predictable results; the further away the light source was from the composite, the less the composite was polymerized.
Methods: Sample groups (n=16) of composites from Group 1[Experimental Flow (Dentsply Caulk)], Group 2[Experimental Posterior Bulkfill (Dentsply Caulk)], Group 3[Experimental posterior universal (Dentsply Caulk)], Group 4[SonicFillTM (Kerr)], Group 5[Surefil SDR® (Dentsply Caulk)], Group 6[Tetric EvoCeram Bulkfill® (Ivoclar Vivadent)] were placed in custom molds and light cured at distances of 0, 3, and 5mm with the help of the Marc resin calibrator using the ISO 4049 test method. The remaining hard composite length was measured with a digital micrometer and the value was divided by two per ISO 4049 protocol. Each sub-group (n=8) tested two different curing lights: Light 1[DemiTM Ultra Plus (Kerr)] and Light 2[SmartLite Focus (Dentsply Caulk)]. Analysis was conducted by one-way ANOVA and Tukey test at 95% confidence interval. Significance was determined with p<0.05.
Results: Among bulk-fills with the light at 0 mm distance, groups 1, 2, and 5 had a statistically significant greater mean of average curing depth than groups 4 and 6. Group 5 had the highest average mean curing depth while group 4 showed the lowest mean of the bulk-fills(Table 1). The depth of cure had the largest drop when comparing the light source from 0mm to 5mm and the smallest decrease when comparing the light source from 3mm to 5mm(Table 2).
Conclusions: Among bulk-fills, groups 1, 2, and 5 had higher curability than groups 4 and 6. While group 3, the control group, was statistically different from all other groups, with a lower mean. This was as expected since it is not bulk-fill composite. The depth of cure based on distance showed predictable results; the further away the light source was from the composite, the less the composite was polymerized.
IMAGES
2122787_File000000.JPG
2122787_File000000.JPG