Effects of delivering the same radiant exposures at 730, 1450, and 2920 mW/cm2 to two resin-based composites

Applicability of Exposure Reciprocity Law for Fast Polymerization of Restorative Composites Containing Various Photoinitiating Systems

OBJECTIVES

The exposure reciprocity law (ERL) has been used to calculate the optimal irradiation time of dental composites. This study examined the applicability of ERL for fast polymerization of restorative composites containing various photoinitiating systems using a high-power multi-peak light-emitting diode (LED) lamp.

METHODS

Three commercial composites differing in photoinitiating systems were tested: Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative (FU) with a camphorquinone-amine (CQ-A) photoinitiating system, Tetric EvoCeram (TEC) with CQ-A and (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide (TPO), and Estelite Σ Quick (ESQ) with CQ and a radical amplified photopolymerization (RAP) initiator. Specimens 2-mm thick were polymerized using a high-power multipeak LED lamp (Valo) at 3 pairs of radiant exposures (referred to as low, moderate, and high) ranging from 15.8-26.7 J/cm2. They were achieved by different combinations of irradiation time (5-20 seconds) and irradiance (1300-2980 mW/cm2) as determined with a calibrated spectrometer. Knoop microhardness was measured 1, 24, and 168 hours after polymerization on specimen top (irradiated) and bottom surfaces to characterize the degree of polymerization. The results were statistically analyzed using a three-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc tests, α = 0.05.

RESULTS

Microhardness increased with radiant exposure and except for ESQ, top-surface microhardness was significantly higher than that on bottom surfaces. Combinations of high irradiance and short irradiation time significantly increased the top-surface microhardness of TEC at low and moderate radiant exposures, and the bottom-surface microhardness of FU at a low radiant exposure. In contrast, the microhardness of ESQ on both surfaces at high radiant exposure increased significantly when low irradiance and long irradiation time were used. With all tested composites, bottom-surface microhardness obtained at low radiant exposure was below 80% of the maximum top-surface microhardness, indicating insufficient polymerization.

CONCLUSION

Combinations of irradiance and irradiation time had a significant effect on microhardness, which was affected by photoinitiators and the optical properties of composites as well as spectral characteristics of the polymerization lamp. Therefore, ERL cannot be universally applied for the calculation of optimal composite irradiation time. Despite high irradiance, fast polymerization led to insufficient bottom-surface microhardness, suggesting the necessity to also characterize the degree of polymerization on the bottom surfaces of composite increments when assessing the validity of ERL.

Resin viscosity determines the condition for a valid exposure reciprocity law in dental composites

OBJECTIVE

To provide conditions for the validity of the exposure reciprocity law as it pertains to the photopolymerization of dimethacrylate-based dental composites.

METHODS

Composites made from different mass ratios of resin blends (Bis-GMA/TEGDMA and UDMA/TEGDMA) and silanized micro-sized glass fillers were used. All the composites used camphorquinone and ethyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate as the photo initiator system. A cantilever beam-based instrument (NIST SRI 6005) coupled with NIR spectroscopy and a microprobe thermocouple was used to simultaneously measure the degree of conversion (DC), the polymerization stress (PS) due to the shrinkage, and the temperature change (TC) in real time during the photocuring process. The instrument has an integrated LED light curing unit providing irradiances ranging from 0.01W/cm² to 4W/cm² at a peak wavelength of 460nm (blue light). Vickers hardness of the composites was also measured.

RESULTS

For every dental composite there exists a minimum radiant exposure required for an adequate polymerization (i.e., insignificant increase in polymerization with any further increase in the radiant exposure). This minimum predominantly depends on the resin viscosity of composite and can be predicted using an empirical equation established based on the test results. If the radiant exposure is above this minimum, the exposure reciprocity law is valid with respect to DC for high-fill composites (filler contents >50% by mass) while invalid for low-fill composites (that are clinically irrelevant).

SIGNIFICANCE

The study promotes better understanding on the applicability of the exposure reciprocity law for dental composites. It also provides a guidance for altering the radiant exposure, with the clinically available curing light unit, needed to adequately cure the dental composite in question.

Clinical performance and chemical-physical properties of bulk fill composites resin -a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of clinical and laboratory studies to compare the performance of bulk-fill and conventional composite resins in terms of polymerization shrinkage, polymerization stress, cusp deflection, marginal quality, degree of conversion, microhardness, flexural strength, fracture strength and clinical performance.

DATA

One hundred three articles were included in this study, and the Peto method was used to compare the bulk-fill and conventional composites using the RevMan software.

SOURCES

Searches were performed in the PubMed and Scopus databases.

STUDY SELECTION

Laboratory studies and randomized clinical trials comparing one of the previous detailed outcomes between bulk-fill and control composites were included.

CONCLUSIONS

The bulk-fill composite resins showed less shrinkage, polymerization stress, cusp deflection and microhardness than conventional composites, while both materials presented a similar marginal quality, flexural strength and fracture strength. Also, bulk-fill materials with regular viscosity showed similar shrinkage. The conversion of bulk-fill materials with flowable consistency were similar to conventional composite resins with a thickness of up to 2mm and greater than conventional composites with a thickness greater than 2mm. Despite these in vitro differences, the clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional composite resins was similar in randomized clinical trials, with one to ten years of follow up. In conclusion, the bulk-fill materials show better or similar performance to the conventional materials in clinical trials and laboratory studies in terms of volumetric shrinkage, polymerization stress, cusps deflection and marginal quality, with the only exception being the lower level of microhardness observed for bulk-fill composites with thickness up to 2mm.