title: Comparison of linear polymerization shrinkage and microhardness between QTH-cured & LED-cured composites.
abstract: This study evaluated the effectiveness of second generation light emitting diode (2ndLED) units in composite curing. In order to compare their effectiveness with that of conventional quartz tungsten halogen light curing units (QTH) and first generation LEDs (1stLED), the amount of linear polymerization shrinkage, polymerization speed and microhardness were measured. Linear polymerization shrinkage was measured every 0.5-0.55 seconds for 60 seconds when composite specimens (Z250, 3M ESPE Dental Products, St Paul, MN, USA) were light cured with five different light sources: XL 3000 (QTH, 3M ESPE Dental Products), Elipar FreeLight 2 (2ndLED, 3M ESPE Dental Products), Ultra-Lume LED2 (2ndLED, Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT, USA), Elipar FreeLight (1stLED, 3M ESPE Dental Products) and experimental product X (1stLED, Biomedisys, Seoul, Korea). The amount of linear polymerization shrinkage in 60 seconds and the speed of polymerization shrinkage in the first 15 seconds were measured for the different lighting units. The amount of polymerization was compared with one-way ANOVA using Tukey at the 95% confidence level. In order to compare the speed of polymerization, the peak time (PT) showing the highest speed of polymerization and maximum speed of polymerization (Smax) were determined from the data and compared using one-way ANOVA with Tukey at the 95% confidence level for each material. For microhardness measurements, the microhardness of 2-mm composites, Z250, which had been light cured by XL 3000 (G1), FreeLight 2 (G2), Ultra-Lume LED2 (G3), FreeLight (G4) or experimental product X (G5) were compared on the upper and lower surface. The microhardness of each surface was compared between groups using two-way ANOVA with Tukey test at 95% levels of confidence. The amount of polymerization shrinkage at 60 seconds was G1, G2, G3> G4, G5 (p<0.05). PT was G1, G3<G2<G4, G5. Smax was G1, G2 > G3 >G4, G5 (p<0.05). On the upper composite surface, there was no difference in microhardness between groups (p<0.05). On the lower surface, the microhardness was G1, G2> G3> G4, G5 (p<0.05). There was no difference in microhardness between the upper and lower surface in G1 and G2; whereas, microhardness of the lower surface was lower in G3, G4 and G5. It was concluded that 2ndLEDs and the conventional QTH unit cu red composites moreeffectively than 1stLEDs.
authors.affiliation: Dept of Conservative Dentistry, BK21 Project of Medical Science, Dept of Oral Science Research Center, Seoul, South Korea. sunghopark@yumc.yonsei.ac.kr
authors.forename: Sung-Ho
authors.initials: SH
authors.lastname: Park
authors.forename: Su-Sun
authors.initials: SS
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Yong-Sik
authors.initials: YS
authors.lastname: Cho
authors.forename: Soon-Young
authors.initials: SY
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Byung-Duk
authors.initials: BD
authors.lastname: Noh
mesh_terms: D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000528:radiation effects; D004867:Equipment Design; D006244:Hardness; D006801:Humans; D008029:Lighting / Q000295:instrumentation*; D008422:Materials Testing; D011108:Polymers / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties; D013997:Time Factors
chemical_list: D003188:Composite Resins; C444701:Filtek Z250; D011108:Polymers