RESUMO
AIM: The aim of this study is to compare the effect of the use of second-generation and third-generation LED light-curing units (LCUs) on the degree of conversion (DC) and microhardness (VHN) of bulk-fill resin composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty cylindrical specimens (each n = 5) of Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill, Filtek™ Bulk-Fill Posterior Restorative, and SDR flow were prepared in metal molds (5 mm in diameter and 4 mm in thickness) and cured with second-generation LED (SmartLite® Focus®, Dentsply Sirona) and third-generation LED (Bluephase® style, Ivoclar Vivadent) resulting in six groups. Degree of conversion was determined using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and microhardness with Vickers microhardness tester. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and least significance difference (LSD) test, and DC and microhardness were correlated using Pearson's correlation (α = 0.05). RESULTS: There was a significant difference between DC and VHN between all groups of bulk-fill which were cured by second-generation LED curing light and third-generation LED curing light. Then there is no significant difference between DC of the three composite bulk-fill resins by (second-generation LED vs third-generation LED curing light). CONCLUSION: The second-generation LED curing light can still be used to cure bulk-fill resin composites by increasing the duration of irradiation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In the microhardness test, there was a significant difference in the Filtek™ Bulk-Fill Posterior Restorative resin composites.
