Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Oper Dent ; 43(5): 520-529, 2018.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29570024

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of different mold materials, their diameters, and light-curing units on the mechanical properties of three resin-based composites (RBC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A conventional nano-filled resin composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra, 3M Oral Care, St Paul, MN, USA) and two bulk-fill composites materials, Tetric Evoceram Bulk fill (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and Aura Bulk Fill (SDI, Bayswater, VIC, Australia), were tested. A total of 240 specimens were fabricated using metal or white semitransparent Delrin molds that were 4 or 10 mm in diameter. The RBCs were light cured for 40 seconds on the high-power setting of either a monowave (DeepCure-S, 3M Oral Care) or polywave (Bluephase G2, Ivoclar Vivadent) light-emitting diode (LED) curing unit. The depth of cure was determined using a scraping test, according to the 2009 ISO 4049 test method. Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance followed by Tukey multiple comparison test ( p<0.05). RESULTS: In general, when used for 40 seconds, both LED curing lights achieved the same depth of cure ( p=0.157). However, the mold material and its diameter had a significant effect on the depth of cure of all three RBCs ( p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Curing with either the polywave or monowave LED curing light resulted in the same depth of cure in the composites. The greatest depth of cure was always achieved using the 10-mm-diameter Delrin mold. Of the three RBCs tested, both Tetric Bulk Fill and Aura achieved a 4-mm depth of cure when tested in the 10-mm-diameter metal mold. Tetric Bulk Fill was the most transparent and had the greatest depth of cure, and the conventional composite had the least depth of cure. Very little violet (<420 nm) light penetrated through 6 mm of any of the RBCs.


Asunto(s)
Resinas Compuestas/uso terapéutico , Curación por Luz de Adhesivos Dentales , Luces de Curación Dental , Restauración Dental Permanente/métodos , Dureza , Humanos , Técnicas In Vitro
2.
Oper Dent ; 41(4): 397-408, 2016.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26652017

RESUMEN

Recently, "budget" dental light-emitting diode (LED)-based light-curing units (LCUs) have become available over the Internet. These LCUs claim equal features and performance compared to LCUs from major manufacturers, but at a lower cost. This study examined radiant power, spectral emission, beam irradiance profiles, effective emission ratios, and the ability of LCUs to provide sustained output values during the lifetime of a single, fully charged battery. Three examples of each budget LCU were purchased over the Internet (KY-L029A and KY-L036A, Foshan Keyuan Medical Equipment Co, and the Woodpecker LED.B, Guilin Woodpecker Medical Instrument Co). Major dental manufacturers provided three models: Elipar S10 and Paradigm (3M ESPE) and the Bluephase G2 (Ivoclar Vivadent). Radiant power emissions were measured using a laboratory-grade thermopile system, and the spectral emission was captured using a spectroradiometer system. Irradiance profiles at the tip end were measured using a modified laser beam profiler, and the proportion of optical tip area that delivered in excess of 400 mW/cm(2) (termed the effective emission ratio) was displayed using calibrated beam profile images. Emitted power was monitored over sequential exposures from each LCU starting at a fully charged battery state. The results indicated that there was less than a 100-mW/cm(2) difference between manufacturer-stated average tip end irradiance and the measured output. All the budget lights had smaller optical tip areas, and two demonstrated lower effective emission ratios than did the units from the major manufacturers. The budget lights showed discontinuous values of irradiance over their tip ends. One unit delivered extremely high output levels near the center of the light tip. Two of the budget lights were unable to maintain sustained and stable light output as the battery charge decreased with use, whereas those lights from the major manufacturers all provided a sustained light output for at least 100 exposures as well as visual and audible indications that the units required recharging.


Asunto(s)
Luces de Curación Dental , Suministros de Energía Eléctrica , Resinas Compuestas , Ensayo de Materiales
3.
Oper Dent ; 40(6): 662-72, 2015.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26237638

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of using three commercial light curing units (LCUs) delivering a range of irradiance values, but delivering similar radiant exposures on the depth of cure of two different resin-based composites (RBCs). METHODS: A conventional hybrid RBC (Z100 shade A2, 3M ESPE) or a bulk fill RBC (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill shade IVA, Ivoclar Vivadent) was packed into a 10-mm deep semicircular metal mold with a 2-mm internal radius. The RBC was exposed to light from a plasma-arc-curing (PAC) light (Sapphire Plus, DenMat) for five seconds, a quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) light (Optilux 501, Kerr) for 40 seconds, or a light-emitting-diode (LED) light (S10, 3M ESPE) for 20 seconds and 40 seconds (control). The Knoop microhardness was then measured as soon as possible at the top surface and at three points every 0.5 mm down from the surface. For each RBC, a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used to predict the Knoop hardness in a manner analogous to a standard regression model. This predicted value was used to determine at what depth the RBC reached 80% of the mean hardness achieved at the top surface with any light. RESULTS: The PAC light delivered an irradiance and radiant exposure of 7328 mW/cm(2) and 36.6 J/cm(2), respectively, to the RBCs; the QTH light delivered 936 mW/cm(2) and 37.4 J/cm(2) and in 20 seconds the LED light delivered 1825 mW/cm(2) and 36.5 J/cm(2). In 40 seconds, the control LED light delivered a radiant exposure of 73.0 J/cm(2). For Z100, using 80% of the maximum hardness at the top surface as the criteria for adequate curing, all light exposure conditions achieved the 2.0-mm depth of cure claimed by the manufacturer. The LED light used for 40 seconds achieved the greatest depth of cure (5.0 mm), and the PAC light used for five seconds, the least (2.5 mm). Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill achieved a 3.5-mm depth of cure when the broad-spectrum QTH light was used for 40 seconds delivering 37.4 J/cm(2). It required a 40-second exposure time with the narrow-spectrum LED, delivering approximately 73 J/cm(2) to reach a depth of cure of 4 mm. CONCLUSIONS: When delivering a similar radiant exposure of 37 J/cm(2), the QTH (40 seconds) and LED (20 seconds) units achieved a greater depth of cure than the PAC (five seconds) light. For both resins, the greatest depth of cure was achieved when the LED light was used for 40 seconds delivering 73 J/cm(2) (p<0.05).


Asunto(s)
Resinas Compuestas/efectos de la radiación , Restauración Dental Permanente/métodos , Dióxido de Silicio/efectos de la radiación , Circonio/efectos de la radiación , Resinas Compuestas/química , Luces de Curación Dental , Restauración Dental Permanente/instrumentación , Dureza , Humanos , Ensayo de Materiales , Dióxido de Silicio/química , Circonio/química
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA