Knoop hardness depth profile of polyacid-modified composite resins.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the hardness versus depth profile of several polyacid-modified composite resins (PAM-Cs) as a function of shade (A2, A4) and compare the depth of cure (DoC) based on these profiles with that previously obtained with the scraping and penetrometer methods. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Samples of 6 PAM-Cs (Hytac, 3M ESPE; F2000, 3M ESPE; Glasiosite, Voco; Dyract, Dentsply DeTrey; Dyract AP, Dentsply DeTrey; Compoglass F, Vivadent) and 3 composite resins (Herculite Enamel XRV, Kerr; Z100, 3M ESPE; Durafill VS, Heraeus Kulzer) with shades A2 and A4 were light-cured in bulk in split stainless steel molds (thickness ranging from 0.5 to 3.5 mm in steps of 0.5 mm). The Knoop hardness of the irradiated top (KHN(surface)) and nonirradiated bottom (KHN(bottom)) surfaces was determined as a function of sample thickness using a microhardness tester. RESULTS: Regression analysis demonstrated that for a given material, KHN(bottom) equals KHN(surface) up to a specific depth (= DoC) depending on the material and shade and then decreases linearly with increasing depth. The decrease of the KHN per unit depth differs significantly among materials and shades. According to a regression analysis, the scraping and penetrometer methods overestimate the DoC of PAM-Cs compared to the method based on the change of the hardness indentation with depth. CONCLUSIONS: Shade A2 results in greater values of DoC than shade A4, the effect depending quantitatively on the formulation of the material. Some formulations of PAM-Cs do not reach a DoC of 2 mm, a layer recommended to be applied in the incremental technique. The DoC as determined according to ISO 4049:2000 apparently is based on a lower degree of polymerization corresponding to a KHN of 80% of the irradiated surface.

Clinical evaluation of bracket bonding using two different polymerization sources.

OBJECTIVE: To comparatively assess clinical failure rate of brackets cured with two different photopolymerization sources after nine months of orthodontic treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample of this study comprised 30 patients who received comprehensive orthodontic treatment by means of fixed appliances. Using the same adhesive, 600 stainless steel brackets were directly bonded and light cured for 10 seconds with the light-emitting diode (LED) lamp or for 20 seconds with the conventional halogen lamp. A split-mouth design randomly alternated from patient to patient was applied. Failure rates were recorded for nine months and analyzed with Pearson chi2 test, and log-rank test at alpha = .05 level of significance. RESULTS: The overall failure rate recorded with the halogen unit (3.33%) was not significantly different from the failure rate for the LED lamp (5.00%). Significantly more failures were found in boys compared with girls, in the mandibular dental arch compared with the maxillary arch, and in posterior segments compared with anterior segments. However, no significant difference was found between the right and left segments. CONCLUSION: Both light-curing units showed sufficiently low bond failure rates. LED curing units are an advantageous alternative to conventional halogen sources in orthodontics because they enable a reduced chair-time bonding procedure without significantly affecting bond failure rate.

Relative curing degree of polyacid-modified and conventional resin composites determined by surface Knoop hardness.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate the relative curing degree at a depth of 2 mm of several polyacid-modified composites (PAM-Cs) as a function of shade. METHODS: The Knoop hardness of the irradiated top and non-irradiated bottom surfaces of 2 mm thick samples of the PAM-Cs Hytac, F2000, Glasiosite, Dyract, Dyract AP, and Compoglass F and of the resin composites Z100, Herculite Enamel XRV, and Durafill VS, were determined for shades A2 and A4. RESULTS: The top and bottom hardness of F2000 and Glasiosite ranged between that of the two composites Herculite and Z100. Compoglass, Dyract and Dyract AP had a lower top and bottom hardness than the hybrid composites, but higher than that of the microfilled composite Durafill. The top hardness of Hytac compared with that of the first group, whereas the bottom hardness compared with the second group. The bottom-to-top KHN ratio reflecting the relative curing degree at a depth of 2 mm was less than 80% for the two shades of Hytac and Compoglass as well as for the A4 shade of Dyract AP and Herculite. SIGNIFICANCE: A hard top surface of a PAM-C is not an indication of adequate in depth polymerization. Shade A2 results in significantly greater values for the curing degree compared to shade A4, the effect depending quantitatively on the formulation of the material. Some formulations of PAM-C do not reach an adequate curing degree at a depth of 2 mm so that it is recommended to apply the incremental technique even in box-only cavities with layers of maximum 2 mm.

Curing depth of (polyacid-modified) composite resins determined by scraping and a penetrometer.

OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to compare the curing depth of polyacid-modified composite resins (PAM-C) and some representative composite resins as a function of shade and post-cure using a scraping method and a penetrometer. METHODS: The curing depth of the PAM-C Hytac, F2000, Glasiosite, Dyract, Dyract AP, and Compoglass F and of the composite resins Durafill VS and Z100 were determined for shade A2 and A4 using a scraping method based on ISO 4049:2000 and a digital penetrometer. Samples were light-cured (800 mW/cm2 at 40 s) in bulk in split stainless steel molds. Immediately after light-curing or after a 24 h post-cure, the height of the cylinder of cured material was measured and taken as the curing depth. RESULTS: For both test methods, the curing depth was independent of post-cure (P > or = 0.05) but differed significantly among materials and shade (P<0.001). Moreover, there was a significant interaction between the latter (P<0.001). Regression analysis generally demonstrated that there was no significant systematic or proportional difference between the test methods. The curing depths of the PAM-C F2000 and Glasiosite were comparable to that of the hybrid composite Z100, but greater than the curing depth of the microfilled composite Durafill VS. The PAM-C Dyract AP, Dyract, Compoglass F and Hytac had a curing depth smaller than that of the microfilled composite. SIGNIFICANCE: The scraping method based on ISO 4049:2000 and a digital penetrometer give comparable curing depths for PAM-C. The curing depth greatly varies among the materials and can be considerably smaller than that of a microfilled composite resin. Shade A2 results in significantly greater values for the curing depth compared to shade A4, the effect depending quantitatively on the formulation of the material.