Polymerization efficiency of different bulk-fill resin composites cured by monowave and polywave light-curing units: a comparative study

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to evaluate the polymerization efficiency of different bulk-fill resin-based composites cured by monowave and polywave light-curing units, by assessment of the degree of conversion and Vickers microhardness at different depths.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Two commercially available bulk-fill resin-based composites were used: Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative (3M ESPE) and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (Ivoclar Vivadent). The light-curing units utilized were two LED light-curing units: a monowave LED light-curing unit (BlueLEX LD-105, Monitex) and a polywave LED light-curing unit (Twin Wave GT-2000, Monitex). For each test, 20 cylindrical specimens (4 mm diameter, 4 mm thickness) were prepared from each bulk-fill resin-based composite using a split Teflon mold. Ten specimens were light-cured by the monowave light-curing unit and the other ten were light-cured by the polywave light-curing unit according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Attenuated total reflectance-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR) was used to assess the degree of conversion, and a Vickers microhardness tester was used to assess Vickers microhardness. Statistical analysis was performed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests (P < .05).

RESULTS

The degree of conversion and Vickers microhardness in bulk-fill resin-based composites containing only camphorquinone as photoinitiator were similar when cured with either monowave or polywave light-curing units. However, bulk-fill resin-based composites containing a combination of photoinitiators exhibited significantly higher degree of conversion and Vickers microhardness when cured with a polywave light-curing unit. Although all groups showed statistically significant differences between the top and bottom surfaces regarding degree of conversion and Vickers microhardness, all of them showed bottom/top ratios > 80% regarding degree of conversion and Vickers microhardness.

CONCLUSION

The polywave light-curing unit enhanced the polymerization efficiency of bulk-fill resin-based composites especially when the latter contained a combination of photoinitiators, but does not prevent the use of a monowave light-curing unit.

No-Cap Flowable Bulk-Fill Composite: Physico-Mechanical Assessment

(1) Background: A newer class of flowable bulk-fill resin-based composite (BF-RBC) materials requires no capping layer (Palfique Bulk flow, PaBF, Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan). The objective of this study was to assess the flexural strength, microhardness, surface roughness, and color stability of PaBF compared to two BF-RBCs with different consistencies. (2) Methods: PaBF, SDR Flow composite (SDRf: Charlotte, NC, USA) and One Bulk fill (OneBF: 3M, St. Paul, MN, USA) were evaluated for flexural strength with a universal testing machine, surface microhardness using a pyramidal Vickers indenter, and surface roughness using a high-resolution three-dimensional non-contact optical profiler, a and clinical spectrophotometer to measure the color stability of each BF-RBC material. (3) Results: OneBF presented statistically higher flexural strength and microhardness than PaBF or SDRf. Both PaBF and SDRf presented significantly less surface roughness compared with OneBF. Water storage significantly reduced the flexural strength and increased the surface roughness of all tested materials. Only SDRf showed significant color change after water storage. (4) Conclusions: The physico-mechanical properties of PaBF do not support its use without a capping layer in the stress bearing areas. PaBF showed less flexural strength compared with OneBF. Therefore, its use should be limited to a small restoration with minimal occlusal stresses.