Jain Poonam, Pershing Adam
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Southern Illinois University School of Dental Medicine, Alton 62002, USA.
J Am Dent Assoc. 2003 Sep;134(9):1215-23. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0356.
The authors conducted a study to determine whether high-intensity curing lights in high and ramped intensity modes affect microleakage of resin-based composite restorations and whether different types of resin-based composites meet American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association Specification no. 27 (1993): 7.7 for depth of cure when polymerized using these lights.
The authors compared five high-intensity lights, three plasma arc lights and two quartz-tungsten-halogen lights in their regular and ramped intensity modes with a quartz-tungsten-halogen 40-second light. The parameters tested were microleakage one month after bonding and curing depth for different resin-based composite types. The authors measured curing depth using a scratch test.
Light curing with Optilux 501 (Kerr/Demetron, Orange, Calif.) for 10 seconds and ADT Power PAC (American Dental Technologies, Corpus Christi, Texas) for 10 seconds resulted in higher microleakage values than light curing with other lights (P < .05). The microhybrid resin-based composite was the only material that met the specification when light cured with all of the lights tested. The flowable resin-based composite did not meet the specification when light cured with all lights tested. Microhybrid resin-based composite had the greatest depth of cure, and flowable resin-based composite had the least depth of cure.
Microhybrid resin-based composite microleakage is affected by some light-curing modes. Different categories of resin-based composites are cured to different depths using high-intensity lights.
Light curing with some high-intensity lights compared with halogen lights may result in higher microleakage values. Use caution when light curing flowable resin-based composite with the high-intensity lights. Place increments less than 2 millimeters in depth when using this material.
作者开展了一项研究，以确定高强度固化灯在高强度模式和缓升强度模式下是否会影响树脂基复合修复体的微渗漏，以及不同类型的树脂基复合材料在使用这些灯聚合时是否符合美国国家标准学会/美国牙科协会第27号规范（1993年）：固化深度达到7.7。
作者将五台高强度灯（三台等离子弧灯和两台石英钨卤素灯）在常规强度模式和缓升强度模式下与一台40秒的石英钨卤素灯进行比较。测试的参数包括粘结和固化一个月后的微渗漏以及不同树脂基复合材料类型的固化深度。作者使用划痕试验测量固化深度。
使用Optilux 501（科尔/德美创，加利福尼亚州奥兰治）固化10秒和ADT Power PAC（美国牙科技术公司，得克萨斯州科珀斯克里斯蒂）固化10秒导致的微渗漏值高于使用其他灯固化（P <.05）。微混合树脂基复合材料是唯一在使用所有测试灯进行光固化时符合规范的材料。可流动树脂基复合材料在使用所有测试灯进行光固化时不符合规范。微混合树脂基复合材料的固化深度最大，可流动树脂基复合材料的固化深度最小。
微混合树脂基复合材料的微渗漏受某些光固化模式的影响。使用高强度灯时，不同类别的树脂基复合材料固化到不同的深度。
与卤素灯相比，使用某些高强度灯进行光固化可能会导致更高的微渗漏值。使用高强度灯对可流动树脂基复合材料进行光固化时要谨慎。使用这种材料时，每层的放置深度小于2毫米。
