Depth of cure of bulk fill composites with monowave and polywave curing lights.

Purpose: To measure and compare the depth of cure (DOC) of two bulk fill resin composites using a monowave and polywave light curing unit (LCU) according to ISO 4049 and using custom tooth molds. Methods: The DOC of Tetric Evoceram Bulk Fill and Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior were measured using a monowave LED LCU (Elipar S10) and a polywave LED LCU (Bluephase G2). Metal molds were used to fabricate 10 mm long DOC specimens (n= 10) according to ISO 4049. Uncured composite material was scraped away with a plastic instrument and half the length of remaining composite was measured as the DOC. Custom tooth molds were fabricated by preparing >10 mm long squareshaped (4x4 mm) holes into the mesial/distal surfaces of extracted human molars. Resin composite was placed into one end of the prepared tooth and light polymerized. Uncured resin composite was removed from the opposite side from which the tooth was irradiated and the tooth was sectioned mesio-distally. Half the length of remaining cured composite was measured as the DOC. Data were analyzed by three-way ANOVA (α= 0.05) for factors material, LCU, and mold. Results: The main effect LCU was not significant (P= 0.58). The interaction effect between material x mold was significant (P= 0.0001). The DOC of the composites differed significantly only with the stainless steel mold in which Tetric Evoceram Bulk Fill showed a deeper DOC than Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (4.03 ± 0.14 vs 3.56 ± 0.38 mm, P< 0.0001). (Am J DentPurpose: To measure and compare the depth of cure (DOC) of two bulk fill resin composites using a monowave and polywave light curing unit (LCU) according to ISO 4049 and using custom tooth molds. Methods: The DOC of Tetric Evoceram Bulk Fill and Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior were measured using a monowave LED LCU (Elipar S10) and a polywave LED LCU (Bluephase G2). Metal molds were used to fabricate 10 mm long DOC specimens (n= 10) according to ISO 4049. Uncured composite material was scraped away with a plastic instrument and half the length of remaining composite was measured as the DOC. Custom tooth molds were fabricated by preparing >10 mm long squareshaped (4x4 mm) holes into the mesial/distal surfaces of extracted human molars. Resin composite was placed into one end of the prepared tooth and light polymerized. Uncured resin composite was removed from the opposite side from which the tooth was irradiated and the tooth was sectioned mesio-distally. Half the length of remaining cured composite was measured as the DOC. Data were analyzed by three-way ANOVA (α= 0.05) for factors material, LCU, and mold. Results: The main effect LCU was not significant (P= 0.58). The interaction effect between material x mold was significant (P= 0.0001). The DOC of the composites differed significantly only with the stainless steel mold in which Tetric Evoceram Bulk Fill showed a deeper DOC than Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (4.03 ± 0.14 vs 3.56 ± 0.38 mm, P< 0.0001). (Am J Dent2015;28:357-361). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of American Journal of Dentistry is the property of Mosher & Linder Incorporated and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)