Can TPO as Photoinitiator Replace "Golden Mean" Camphorquinone and Tertiary Amines in Dental Composites? Testing Experimental Composites Containing Different Concentration of Diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine Oxide.

The aim of this research was to compare the biomechanical properties of experimental composites containing a classic photoinitiating system (camphorquinone and 2-(dimethylami-no)ethyl methacrylate) or diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide (TPO) as a photoinitiator. The produced light-cured composites consisted of an organic matrix-Bis-GMA (60 wt.%), TEGDMA (40 wt.%) and silanized silica filler (45 wt.%). Composites contained 0.27; 0.5; 0.75 or 1 wt.% TPO. Vickers hardness, microhardness (in the nanoindentation test), diametral tensile strength, resistance to three-point bending and the CIE L* a* b* colorimetric analysis was performed with each composite produced. The highest average Vickers hardness values were obtained for the composite containing 1 wt.% TPO (43.18 ± 1.7HV). The diametral tensile strength remains on regardless of the type and amount of photoinitiator statistically the same level, except for the composite containing 0.5 wt.% TPO for which DTS = 22.70 ± 4.7 MPa and is the lowest recorded value. The highest average diametral tensile strength was obtained for the composite containing 0.75 wt.% TPO (29.73 ± 4.8 MPa). The highest modulus of elasticity characterized the composite containing 0.75 wt.% TPO (5383.33 ± 1067.1 MPa). Composite containing 0.75 wt.% TPO has optimal results in terms of Vickers hardness, diametral tensile strength, flexural strength and modulus of elasticity. Moreover, these results are better than the parameters characterizing the composite containing the CQ/DMAEMA system. In terms of an aesthetic composite containing 0.75 wt.%. TPO is less yellow in color than the composite containing CQ/DMAEMA. This conclusion was objectively confirmed by test CIE L* a* b*.

The Influence of Various Photoinitiators on the Properties of Commercial Dental Composites.

The aim of this article was to compare the biomechanical properties of commercial composites containing different photoinitiators: Filtek Ultimate (3M ESPE) containing camphorquinone (CQ); Estelite Σ Quick (Tokuyama Dental) with CQ in RAP Technology®; Tetric EvoCeram Bleach BLXL (Ivoclar Vivadent AG) with CQ and Lucirin TPO; and Tetric Evoceram Powerfill IVB (Ivoclar Vivadent AG) with CQ and Ivocerin TPO. All samples were cured with a polywave Valo Lamp (Ultradent Products Inc.) with 1450 mW/cm2. The microhardness, hardness by Vicker's method, diametral tensile strength, flexural strength and contraction stress with photoelastic analysis were tested. The highest hardness and microhardness were observed for Filtek Ultimate (93.82 ± 17.44 HV), but other composites also displayed sufficient values (from 52 ± 3.92 to 58,82 ± 7.33 HV). Filtek Ultimate not only demonstrated the highest DTS (48.03 ± 5.97 MPa) and FS (87.32 ± 19.03 MPa) but also the highest contraction stress (13.7 ± 0.4 MPa) during polymerization. The TetricEvoCeram Powerfill has optimal microhardness (54.27 ± 4.1 HV), DTS (32.5 ± 5.29 MPa) and FS (79.3 ± 14.37 MPa) and the lowest contraction stress (7.4 ± 1 MPa) during photopolymerization. To summarize, Filtek Ultimate demonstrated the highest microhardness, FS and DTS values; however, composites with additional photoinitiators such as Lucirin TPO and Ivocerin have the lowest polymerization shrinkage. These composites also have higher FS and DTS and microhardness than material containing CQ in Rap Technology.

The Photoinitiators Used in Resin Based Dental Composite-A Review and Future Perspectives.

The presented paper concerns current knowledge of commercial and alternative photoinitiator systems used in dentistry. It discusses alternative and commercial photoinitiators and focuses on mechanisms of polymerization process, in vitro measurement methods and factors influencing the degree of conversion and hardness of dental resins. PubMed, Academia.edu, Google Scholar, Elsevier, ResearchGate and Mendeley, analysis from 1985 to 2020 were searched electronically with appropriate keywords. Over 60 articles were chosen based on relevance to this review. Dental light-cured composites are the most common filling used in dentistry, but every photoinitiator system requires proper light-curing system with suitable spectrum of light. Alternation of photoinitiator might cause changing the values of biomechanical properties such as: degree of conversion, hardness, biocompatibility. This review contains comparison of biomechanical properties of dental composites including different photosensitizers among other: camphorquinone, phenanthrenequinone, benzophenone and 1-phenyl-1,2 propanedione, trimethylbenzoyl-diphenylphosphine oxide, benzoyl peroxide. The major aim of this article was to point out alternative photoinitiators which would compensate the disadvantages of camphorquinone such as: yellow staining or poor biocompatibility and also would have mechanical properties as satisfactory as camphorquinone. Research showed there is not an adequate photoinitiator which can be as sufficient as camphorquinone (CQ), but alternative photosensitizers like: benzoyl germanium or novel acylphosphine oxide photoinitiators used synergistically with CQ are able to improve aesthetic properties and degree of conversion of dental resin.