Ilie Nicoleta, Felten Kathrin, Trixner Katja, Hickel Reinhard, Kunzelmann Karl-Heinz
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Goethestr. 70, Munich 80336, Germany.
Dent Mater. 2005 May;21(5):483-9. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2004.08.007.
The present study determined the influence of different light curing regimes (four light-emitting diode (LED) units (Freelight 1 and 2, 3M-ESPE; e-light, GC; Bluephase (prototype), Ivoclar Vivadent), two quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) lights (Astralis 10, Ivoclar Vivadent; Swiss Master Light, EMS) and one plasma-light curing unit (Easy Cure, DMDS)) on the curing behavior of a resin-based composite material (InTen-S, Ivoclar Vivadent).
Polymerization shrinkage was induced by light curing the tested material with 14 different regimes of the curing units mentioned above. The contraction stress was recorded for 300 s at room temperature with a Stress-Strain-Analyzer (c(FACTOR)=0.3). The maximum contraction stresses after 300 s, the time until gelation (t(0.5N)), and the coefficient of near linear fit of contraction force/time (gradient) were analyzed. The statistical analysis was conducted using ANOVA (alpha=0.05) and Tukey's post hoc test.
The five tested regimes of the LED unit e-light revealed the lowest statistically significantly maximum contraction stress followed by the low intensity LED unit Freelight 1 and the plasma curing unit Easy Cure. The high intensity LED unit Freelight 2 exhibited a significantly higher contraction stress compared to Freelight 1. No significant differences between the standard and exponential modes within these curing units were found. No significant differences were found between the LED unit Freelight 2 and the pulse program of the halogen light curing unit Astralis 10. The highest polymerization stresses were observed for the high energy curing units, either QTH (Swiss Master Light and Astralis 10) or LED (Bluephase).
Fast contraction force development, high contraction stress and an early start of stress build-up cause tension in the material with possible subsequent distortion of the bond to the tooth structure. The lowest polymerization stress was observed for the low energy LED lamps, while the plasma unit and the high energy QTH and LED curing units produced two to three times higher stress.
本研究确定了不同光固化方式(四种发光二极管(LED)装置(Freelight 1和2,3M-ESPE公司;e-light,GC公司;Bluephase(原型),义获嘉伟瓦登特公司)、两种石英钨卤素(QTH)灯(Astralis 10,义获嘉伟瓦登特公司;Swiss Master Light,EMS公司)和一种等离子光固化装置(Easy Cure,DMDS公司))对一种树脂基复合材料(InTen-S,义获嘉伟瓦登特公司)固化行为的影响。
通过用上述14种不同的固化装置光固化测试材料来诱导聚合收缩。使用应力应变分析仪在室温下记录300秒的收缩应力(c(FACTOR)=0.3)。分析300秒后的最大收缩应力、凝胶化时间(t(0.5N))以及收缩力/时间的近似线性拟合系数(梯度)。使用方差分析(α=0.05)和Tukey事后检验进行统计分析。
LED装置e-light的五种测试方式显示出统计学上显著最低的最大收缩应力,其次是低强度LED装置Freelight 1和等离子固化装置Easy Cure。与Freelight 1相比,高强度LED装置Freelight 2表现出显著更高的收缩应力。在这些固化装置的标准模式和指数模式之间未发现显著差异。在LED装置Freelight 2和卤素光固化装置Astralis 10的脉冲程序之间未发现显著差异。对于高能固化装置,无论是QTH(Swiss Master Light和Astralis 10)还是LED(Bluephase),都观察到了最高的聚合应力。
快速的收缩力发展、高收缩应力以及应力积累的早期开始会导致材料内部产生张力,可能随后使与牙结构的粘结变形。低能量LED灯的聚合应力最低,而等离子装置以及高能量QTH和LED固化装置产生的应力则高出两到三倍。