IADR Abstract Archives
Gap Formation of Flowable Composites with Different LCUs Using SS-OCT
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of monowave and polywave LED light curing unit on gap formation of flowable resin composites using SS-OCT.
Methods: Round tapered cavities (Ø: 3 mm; h: 2 mm) were prepared on the labial surface of bovine incisors teeth and one step adhesive system (Scotch Bond Universal, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) were applied and filled each cavity with one of three flowable resin composites, Estelite Universal Flow (EU, Super Low, Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan), Clearfil Majesty ES Flow (ES, Super low, Kuraray Noritake Dental, Tokyo, Japan) and Filtek Supreme Ultra Flow (FS, 3M ESPE, USA), followed by light curing for 20s (n=2). Two LED light curing units (LCU), Elipar Deep Cure-L (monowave LED LCU, 3M ESPE) and Bluephase 20i (polywave LED LCU, Ivoclar Vivadent) were used at 1200mW/cm2. 0°, 45°, 90°and 135° cross-sectional images of immediately after light cured restored cavity were obtained by SS-OCT (IVS-2000, Santec). All images were processed with imaging analysis software (ImageJ) to quantify gap formation. The specimens were sectioned and observed under confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) analysis at 20x magnification to confirm gap observed under SS-OCT. Data were statistically analyzed by 2-way ANOVA followed by t-test and t-test with Bonferroni correction.
Results: Image analysis from SS-OCT revealed significant differences of gaps formation among groups.
In enamel and dentin, there were interaction between material and LCU type. In enamel and dentin, polywave showed significantly higher gap than monowave in FS (p<0.05). In ES, monowave had significantly higher gap than polywave in dentin (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Different type of LED LCU showed different trend of gap formation, and tendency is composite material dependent.
Methods: Round tapered cavities (Ø: 3 mm; h: 2 mm) were prepared on the labial surface of bovine incisors teeth and one step adhesive system (Scotch Bond Universal, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) were applied and filled each cavity with one of three flowable resin composites, Estelite Universal Flow (EU, Super Low, Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan), Clearfil Majesty ES Flow (ES, Super low, Kuraray Noritake Dental, Tokyo, Japan) and Filtek Supreme Ultra Flow (FS, 3M ESPE, USA), followed by light curing for 20s (n=2). Two LED light curing units (LCU), Elipar Deep Cure-L (monowave LED LCU, 3M ESPE) and Bluephase 20i (polywave LED LCU, Ivoclar Vivadent) were used at 1200mW/cm2. 0°, 45°, 90°and 135° cross-sectional images of immediately after light cured restored cavity were obtained by SS-OCT (IVS-2000, Santec). All images were processed with imaging analysis software (ImageJ) to quantify gap formation. The specimens were sectioned and observed under confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) analysis at 20x magnification to confirm gap observed under SS-OCT. Data were statistically analyzed by 2-way ANOVA followed by t-test and t-test with Bonferroni correction.
Results: Image analysis from SS-OCT revealed significant differences of gaps formation among groups.
In enamel and dentin, there were interaction between material and LCU type. In enamel and dentin, polywave showed significantly higher gap than monowave in FS (p<0.05). In ES, monowave had significantly higher gap than polywave in dentin (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Different type of LED LCU showed different trend of gap formation, and tendency is composite material dependent.
3184830_File000000.jpg