Composite cure and pulp-cell cytotoxicity associated with LED curing lights.
This study compared the cure and pulp-cell cytotoxicity of composites polymerized with light-emitting diode (LED) and halogen-based light curing units. A mini-filled resin composite (Tetric Ceram, Vivadent), two LED (E-light [EL], GC and Freelight [FL], 3M-ESPE), a conventional halogen (Max [MX], Dentsply) and a high-intensity halogen light (Astralis 10 [AS], Vivadent) were evaluated. Cure associated with the different lights was determined by measuring the top and bottom surface hardness (KHN; n = 5) of 2-mm thick specimens using a digital microhardness tester (load = 500 gf; dwell time = 15 seconds). Pulp-cell cytotoxicity was assessed using a direct contact method involving incisor tooth slices dissected from 28-day old Wistar rats maintained in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium (DMEM) and 1% agarose. The bottom surfaces of the cured composite specimens (7-mm diameter and 2-mm deep) were placed in contact with the openings of each tooth slice. After incubation in 5% CO2 atmosphere at 37 degrees C for 48 hours, the tooth slices were fixed, demineralized and processed for histological examination. Pulp fibroblasts and odontoblasts were counted histomorphometrically at 400x magnification within a 1500 microm2 area using a computerized micro-imaging system. Eighteen readings were obtained for each curing light. Data was subjected to ANOVA/Scheffe's test and Pearson's correlation at significance level 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. At the top surfaces, the cure with AS was significantly greater than the other curing lights, with MX and FL being significantly greater than EL. At the bottom surfaces, MX, AS and FL had significantly better cure than EL. Specimens cured with MX were less cytotoxic than those polymerized with other curing lights. Specimens cured with AS and EL were significantly less cytotoxic than FL. Composite cure and cytotoxicity associated with LED lights is device dependent. Composite cure was not correlated to pulp-cell cytotoxicity. The response of pulpal fibroblasts to unreacted/leached components of composites differs somewhat from odontoblasts.
Yap
Adrian U J
AU
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, National University of Singapore, Republic of Singapore. rsdyapuj@nus.edu.sg
Saw
T Y
TY
Cao
T
T
Ng
Mary M L
MM
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D000818:Animals; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000633:toxicity; D046508:Culture Techniques; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000633:toxicity; D003782:Dental Pulp / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000473:pathology; D005347:Fibroblasts / Q000187:drug effects; D006219:Halogens; D006244:Hardness; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D008029:Lighting / Q000295:instrumentation*; D009804:Odontoblasts / Q000187:drug effects; D011108:Polymers / Q000737:chemistry / Q000633:toxicity; D051381:Rats; D017208:Rats, Wistar; D013696:Temperature; D013997:Time Factors
D003188:Composite Resins; D003764:Dental Materials; D006219:Halogens; D011108:Polymers; C121818:Tetric ceram