Effect of two light-emitting diode (LED) and one halogen curing light on the microleakage of Class V flowable composite restorations.
OBJECTIVE
The disadvantages of light cured composite resin materials with respect to microleakage are predominantly a result of polymerization shrinkage upon curing. It has been shown curing methods play a significant role in polymerization shrinkage of light-cured composite resins. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of light-emitting diode (LED) light curing units (LCUs) compared with a halogen LCU on microleakage of three different flowable composites using self-etch adhesives.


METHODS
A total of 63 extracted human premolars were prepared with standardized Class V cavity preparations on the buccal and lingual surfaces of each tooth. The occlusal margin of the cavities was located on the enamel and the gingival margin was on dentin. Teeth were randomly assigned to three groups of 21 teeth each as follows: Group 1: Adper Prompt L-Pop + Filtek Flow (3M ESPE); Group 2: AdheSE + Tetric Flow (Ivoclar, Vivadent); and Group 3: Clearfil Protect Bond + Clearfil Protect Liner F (Kuraray Medical Inc.). All the groups were subdivided into three groups according to the curing lights used (n=7). Two LED LCUs, Elipar FreeLight and Elipar FreeLight 2 (3M ESPE), and one halogen-based LCU, Hilux Expert (Benlioglu ), were used. All teeth were then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye solution for 24 hours after thermocycling (500 cycles; between 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C). The teeth then were longitudinally sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope (40X magnification) by two examiners. The degree of dye penetration was recorded separately for enamel and dentin. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests with the Bonferroni correction.


RESULTS
No statistically significant differences in microleakage were observed between groups either on enamel or dentin (p>0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
With the limitation of this in vitro study, the differences in microleakage between LCUs used were not statistically significantly different. Elipar Free Light 2 reduces curing time which can be considered as an advantage.
Attar
Nuray
N
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hacettepe, Ankara, Turkey. nurayattar@hotmail.com
Korkmaz
Yonca
Y
D001641:Bicuspid; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000528:radiation effects*; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation; D003748:Dental Equipment; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000517:prevention & control*; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000528:radiation effects; D006219:Halogens; D006801:Humans; D008027:Light; D044367:Phase Transition; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000528:radiation effects; D012666:Semiconductors; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric
D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; C467913:Filtek Flow; D006219:Halogens; C409388:Protect Liner F; D019279:Resin Cements; C452226:tetric flow composite resin