ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: It is known that bulk-fill have been widely studied and used by dentists in the clinic. However, the use of light-curing units that do not have the ability to adequately light-cure these materials at the appropriate depth can affect their clinical performance. The aim of this study was evaluating the influence of 5 different light curing units (LCUs) on the degree of conversion (DC) of a bulk-fill resin at depths of 0 to 4 mm and determined the effect of using 20s exposure and 40s. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cylinders of composite were made in a stainless steel matrix (n=10). The specimens were exposed from the top surface using 5 LCUs: Valo® Cordless (VA); Radii Plus (RA); Emitter.D (EM), Biolux Plus (BI), Woodpecker® (WO). The emission wavelength and the power density was determined. After the photoactivation, the Raman vibrational modes were calculated taking as reference the peaks at 1,601 (aromatic bonds C=C) and 1,640 cm-1 (aliphatic bonds C=C). RESULTS: The largest difference in DC in 20s, comparing the values obtained in the first and last layer is for BI, with a variation from 61.24% to 53.86%. Comparing the LCUs, the last layer in 40s DC values are 57.40% (BI), 58.21% (WO), 58.97% (VA), 60.90% (RA) and 62.42% (EM). The higher the dose (J/cm²) and the close the λmax is to the maximum CQ absorption length (λmax ~ 470 nm) the better the DC value. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant difference in the DC values between the LCUs with increasing depth of the bulk-fill increments. Results indicate significant differences in DC among the different LCUs as well as enhanced DC when using 40s exposure compared to 20s. It is suggested that for DC improvement using lower power photoactivator increase the exposure time the exposure time should be 20s to 40s. Key words:Polymerization, Composite Resins, Raman spectroscopy.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To perform a review on the influence of preheating and/or heating of resinous and ionomeric materials on their physical and mechanical properties and to discuss the benefits and methods of preheating/heating that have been used. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was performed in the Pubmed, Scopus, Scielo, and gray literature databases. In vitro studies published from 1980 until now were searched using the descriptors "composite resins OR glass ionomer cements OR resin cements OR adhesives AND heating OR preheating." Data extraction and quality of work evaluation were performed by two independent evaluators. RESULTS: At the end of reading the search titles and abstracts, 74 articles were selected. Preheating of composite resins reduces viscosity, facilitates adaptation to cavity preparation walls, increases the degree of conversion, and decreases the polymerization shrinkage. Preheating of resin cements improves strength, adhesion, and degree of conversion. Dental adhesives showed good results such as higher bond strength to dentin. However, unlike resinous materials, ionomeric materials have an increase in viscosity upon heating. CONCLUSIONS: Preheating improves the mechanical and physical properties. However, there is a lack of clinical studies to confirm the advantages of preheating technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Preheating of dental restorative materials is a simple, safe, and successful technique. In order to achieve good results, agility and training are necessary so the material would not lose heat until the restorative procedure. Also, care is necessary to avoid bubbles and formation of gaps, which compromises the best restoration performance.