Exposure times for contemporary composites

High-Power LED Units Currently Available for Dental Resin-Based Materials-A Review

The pursuit of less time-consuming procedures led to the development of high-power light-curing-units (LCU) to light-cure dental-resin-based-materials. This review aims to describe high-power light-emitting-diode (LED)-LCUs, by a bibliometric systematization of in vitro and in vivo studies. The research-question, by PICO model, aimed to assess the current knowledge on dentistry-based high-power LED-LCUs by analyzing to what extent their use can promote adverse events on materials and patients' oral condition when compared to low-power LED-LCUs, on daily dental practice. PubMed and B-on database search focused on high-power (≥2000 mW/cm2) LED-LCUs outputs. Studies assessing performance of high-power LED-LCUs for light-curing dental-resin-based-materials were included. From 1822 screened articles, 21 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two marketed units with high levels of radiant emittance (≥2000 mW/cm2 up to 6000 mW/cm2) were identified. Most output values vary on 2000-3000 mW/cm2. The highest output found was 6000 mW/cm2, in FlashMax™P3. Reports suggest that light-curing protocols with lower emittance irradiance and longer exposure outperforms all other combination, however in some clinical procedures high-power LED-LCUs are advocated when compared to low-power LED-LCUs. Moreover, long time exposures and over-curing can be dangerous to the biological vital pulp, and other oral tissues. Evidence showing that high-power LCUs are the best clinical option is still very scarce.

Effect of high-irradiance light curing on exposure times and pulpal temperature of adequately polymerized composite

This study investigated the effect of high-irradiance light-curing on exposure time and pulpal temperature of adequately-cured composite. Composite placed in a molar preparation was cured using high-irradiance light-curing units (Flashmax P3, Valo, S.P.E.C. 3 LED, Cybird XD) and tested for hardness occlusal-gingivally. The first group had exposure times set according to manufacturer settings (recommended), second group to yield 80% of maximum hardness at the 2 mm depth (experimental), and third group was set at 20 s (extended). Exposure time necessary to adequately polymerize the composite at 2 mm depth was 9 s for the Cybird XD and Valo and 12 s for S.P.E.C. 3 LED and Flashmax P3. None of the high-irradiance light-curing units adequately polymerized the composite at the manufacturer-recommended minimum-exposure times of 1-3 s. Exposure times necessary to adequately polymerize composite at 2 mm resulted in a maximum pulpal-temperature increase well below the temperature associated with possible pulpal necrosis.

Accuracy of Irradiance and Power of Light-Curing Units Measured With Handheld or Laboratory Grade Radiometers

Abstract This study measured and compared exitance irradiance and power of 4 commercial dental light-curing units (LCU) (Elipar S10, Elipar DeepCure-S, Corded VALO and Bluephase Style) using different types of radiometers. The devices used to analyze the LCU were classified as either handheld analog (Henry Schein, Spring, Demetron 100A, Demetron 100B and Demetron 200), handheld digital (Bluephase 1, Bluephase II, Coltolux, CureRite and Hilux), or laboratory instruments (Thermopile and Integrating Sphere). The laboratory instruments and the Bluephase II radiometer were also used to measure the LCU’s power (mW). The LCU’s were activated for 20 s (n=5). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test (a=0.05). Among the LCU, the laboratory instruments presented different irradiance values, except for Corded VALO. The Coltolux and Hilux radiometers measured greater irradiance values compared to the laboratory instruments for the four LCUs tested. Within a given LCU, handheld analog units measured lower irradiance values, compared to handheld digital and laboratory instruments, except using the Spring radiometer for the Elipar S10 LCU. None of the handheld radiometers were able to measure similar irradiance values compared to laboratory instruments, except for Elipar S10 when comparing Bluephase 1 and Thermopile. Regarding power measurement, Bluephase II always presented the lowest values compared to the laboratory instruments. These findings suggest that the handheld radiometers utilized by practitioners (analog or digital) exhibit a wide range of irradiance values and may show lower outcomes compared to laboratory based instruments.

Influence of Emission Spectrum and Irradiance on Light Curing of Resin-Based Composites

PURPOSE

This study examined the influence of different emission spectra (single-peak and broad-spectrum) light-curing units (LCUs) delivering the same radiant exposures at irradiance values of 1200 or 3600 mW/cm² on the polymerization and light transmission of four resin-based composites (RBCs).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Two prototype LCUs that used the same light tip, but were either a single-peak blue or a broad-spectrum LED, were used to deliver the same radiant exposures to the top surfaces of the RBCs using either standard (1200 mW/cm²) or high irradiance (3600 mW/cm²) settings. The emission spectrum and radiant power from the LCUs were measured with a laboratory-grade integrating sphere coupled to a spectrometer, and the light beam was assessed with a beam profiler camera. Four RBCs (Filtek Supreme Ultra A2, Tetric EvoCeram A2, Tetric EvoCeram T, and TPH Spectra High Viscosity A2) were photoactivated using four different light conditions: single-peak blue/standard irradiance, single-peak blue/high irradiance, broad-spectrum/standard irradiance, and broad-spectrum/high irradiance. The degree of conversion (N=5) and microhardness at the top and bottom of 2.3-mm-diameter by 2.5-mm-thick specimens (N=5) were analyzed with analysis of variance and Tukey tests. The real-time light transmission through the RBCs was also measured.

RESULTS

For all light conditions, the 2.3-mm-diameter specimens received a homogeneous irradiance and spectral distribution. Although similar radiant exposures were delivered to the top surfaces of the RBCs, the amount of light energy emitted from the bottom surfaces was different among the four RBCs, and was also greater for the single-peak lights. Very little violet light (wavelengths below 420 nm) reached the bottom of the 2.5-mm-thick specimens. The degree of conversion and microhardness results varied according to the RBC (p<0.05). The RBCs that included alternative photoinitiators had greater microhardness values at the top when cured with broad-spectrum lights, while at the bottom, where little violet light was observed, the results were equal or higher when they were photoactivated with single-peak blue lights. With the exception of the microhardness at the top of TPH, equivalent or higher microhardness and degree-of-conversion values were achieved at the bottom surface when the standard (1200 mW/cm²) irradiance levels were used compared to when high irradiance levels were used.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the different behaviors of the tested RBCs, the emission spectrum and irradiance level influenced the polymerization of some RBCs. The RBCs that included alternative photoinitiators produced greater values at the top when cured with broad-spectrum lights, while at the bottom, results were equal or higher for the RBCs photoactivated with single-peak blue lights.

Effects of radiant exposure values using second and third generation light curing units on the degree of conversion of a lucirin-based resin composite

Objective

Using Fourier transform infrared analysis (FTIR) in vitro, the effects of varying radiant exposure (RE) values generated by second and third generation LED LCUs on the degree of conversion (DC) and maximum rate of polymerization (Rpmax) of an experimental Lucirin TPO-based RC were evaluated.

Material and Methods

1 mm or 2 mm thick silicon molds were positioned on a horizontal attenuated total reflectance (ATR) unit attached to an infrared spectroscope. The RC was inserted into the molds and exposed to varying REs (18, 36 and 56 J/cm2) using second (Radii Plus, SDI) and third generation LED LCUs (Bluephase G2/Ivoclar Vivadent) or a quartz tungsten based LCU (Optilux 501/SDS Kerr). FTIR spectra (n=7) were recorded for 10 min (1 spectrum/s, 16 scans/spectrum, resolution 4 cm-1) immediately after their application to the ATR. The DC was calculated using standard techniques for observing changes in aliphatic to aromatic peak ratios both prior to, and 10 min after curing, as well as during each 1 second interval. DC and Rpmax data were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (p=0.05).

Results

No significant difference in DC or Rpmax was observed between the 1 mm or 2 mm thick specimens when RE values were delivered by Optilux 501 or when the 1 mm thick composites were exposed to light emitted by Bluephase G2, which in turn promoted a lower DC when 18 J/cm2 (13 s) were delivered to the 2 mm thick specimens. Radii Plus promoted DC and Rpmax values close to zero under most conditions, while the delivery of 56 J/cm2 (40 s) resulted in low DC values.

Conclusions

The third generation LCU provided an optimal polymerization of Lucirin TPO-based RC under most tested conditions, whereas the second generation LED-curing unit was useless regardless of the RE.

Seventeen Years of Using Flowable Resin Restoratives--A Dental Practitioner's Personal Clinical Review

Seen through the author's eyes on the basis of his practising dentistry for almost three decades, light-activated flowable resin restoratives (FRCs) or, in common clinical dental terminology, flowable composites have gradually gained major importance in restorative dentistry. Inputs to this ongoing trend are coming from continuous improvements in material properties and the favourable handling characteristics experienced with this particular group of restoratives. Intended to be used in direct adhesive filling procedures, the number and variety of recent generations of flowable composites for lining, restoration of all cavity classes (I-V), core build-ups and, more recently, 'bulk-fill-restorations', however, necessitates a profound clinical understanding of the selective use of flowable composites to ensure clinical success and guarantee long-term high quality results. Clinical relevance: Today's flowable composites allow for reliable restoration of all kinds of defects. However, both the handling characteristics and the material properties of FRCs must be fully understood before taking advantage of their potentially excellent clinical performance.