| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3145077 | Journal of Dentistry | 2012 | 7 Pages |
ObjectivesRecently the colour stability of composite resins has been an issue due to the emphasis on the aesthetics of restored teeth. The purpose of the present study was to investigate how dual-peak LED units affect the polymerization of coinitiator-containing composite resins.Materials and methodsFive composite resins [coinitiator-containing: Aelite LS Posterior (AL), Tetric EvoCeram (TE), and Vit-l-escence (VI); only CQ-containing: Grandio (GD) and Filtek Z350 (Z3)] were light cured using four different light-curing units (LCUs). Among them, Bluephase G2 (BP) and G-light (GL) were dual-peak LED LCUs. Microhardness, polymerization shrinkage, flexural, and compressive properties were measured.ResultsBP and GL had no consistent effect on the microhardness of AL, TE, and VI on the top and bottom surfaces of resin specimens. Among the specimens, AL and VI showed the least (9.86–10.41 μm) and greatest (17.58–19.21 μm) polymerization shrinkage, respectively. However, the effect of BP and GL on the shrinkage of specimens was not consistent. Among the specimens, GD showed the greatest flexural properties [strength (FS) and modulus (FM)] and TE showed the lowest flexural and compressive properties [strength (CS) and modulus (CM)]. In same resin product, maximum FS and CS differences due to the different LCUs were 10.3–21.0% and 3.6–9.2%, respectively. Furthermore, the influences of BP and GL on FS and CS were not consistent.ConclusionThe tested dual-peak LED LCUs had no consistent synergic effect on the polymerization of coinitiator-containing composite resins as compared with QTH and single-peak LED LCUs.Clinical significanceThe dual-peak LED LCUs achieve a similar degree of polymerization in coinitiator-composite resins as QTH and single-peak LED LCUs did. Choice of LCU does not appear to be a determinant of the light curing of coinitiator-composite resins.
