Objectives: Curing devices are now more efficient and conversion of composite resin is strictly dependent on their performance. Some of them have different polymerization programs suitable for different clinical conditions. To evaluate whether two different curing devices might convert composite resin in the same way a dental composite. Methods: Two curing devices were employed in this study: a traditional halogen curing unit (Demetron 501, Kerr, USA) and a high power curing light (EMS, Nyon, Switzerland). Ten composite discs 0,25 mm thick (Tetric Evoceram, Shade A3, Ivoclar-Vivadent) for each group were polymerized throught a mylar strip (0mm), and a 1mm, 2mm, 3mm, thick composite disc for 40 sec at 600 mW/cm2 with the first curing lamp and 5 second at 3000 mW/cm2 with the second one. HPLC analyses was performed to assess the conversion by the quantity of eluted monomers from the polymerized discs.Comparison of the biomass adherent to the specimen surfaces was performed. Results: The two curing devices showed different ability to cure the dental composite examined; the depth of curing was higher in the traditional curing lamp. On the opposite the high power device showed better results in superficial layers (ANOVA p<0.001). For group EMS post-hoc analyses by Student-Neuman-Keuls for p<.05 was significant for 3mm samples in both group and for 0mm and the other levels. Conclusions: High power curing devices might accelerate polymerization of composite resin but the depth of curing is still questionable and, from a clinical point of view, might play a detrimental effect on the composite resin feature. High power curing devices are more suitable to cure thin layer of composite resin, the depth of curing was more high in traditional halogen curing lamp.

Back to the Late Breaking News Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 85th General Session and Exhibition (March 21-24, 2007)

Top Level Search