Muñoz Carlos A, Bond Peter R, Sy-Muñoz Jenny, Tan Daniel, Peterson John
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Squire Hall Room 215, 3435 Main St., Buffalo, NY 14214, USA.
Am J Dent. 2008 Aug;21(4):215-22.
To evaluate the depth of cure and surface hardness of two resin composites when subjected to three preheating temperatures, three polymerization times and two types of curing lights.
Two resin composites were used in this study (Esthet-X and TPH), three polymerization times (10, 20, 40 seconds), three preheating temperatures (70, 100, 140 degrees F/21.1, 37.7 and 60 degrees C), and two curing lights (halogen and LED). For depth of cure measurements, 180 specimens (4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth) were made for 36 combinations of variables. Four Knoop hardness measurements were obtained from both the top and bottom surfaces. For the surface hardness, another 180 (4 x 6 mm) cylindrical specimens were fabricated. Each specimen was sectioned in half and hardness measurements were made at 0.5 mm intervals. Statistical analyses were performed using the multifactor ANOVA at a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.
For depth of cure, there was a statistical difference among all the main effects (time, temperature and curing light) for both composites (P > 0.001) when the % difference from the top was analyzed. Results indicate that there was an increase in hardness as the temperature of the composite was increased from 70 to 140 degrees F for both composites for either the top or the bottom. The percent difference in hardness was greater when the LED curing light was used compared to the halogen curing light. Overall there was a greater change in hardness when the resin composite was polymerized at 140 degrees F. Although the ISO standard was not met in many cases, there was a significant increase in hardness on both the top and bottom as temperature and curing time increased (P < 0.001). Results for the surface hardness showed that there was a significant statistical difference (P < 0.001) in hardness when the surface hardness at 0.5 and 3.5 mm were analyzed separately. There was a general increase in surface hardness for both the hybrid and microhybrid as time and temperature increased. For both hybrid and microhybrid groups, as the temperature increased, there was an increase in hardness and it was statistically different (P < 0.001). When the percent difference between 70 and 100 degrees F or 70 and 140 degrees F was evaluated, the greatest increase occurred between the 70 and 140 degrees F and minimal increase between 100 and 140 degrees F. Overall, the LED curing light provided a greater surface hardness for the hybrid at both depths than the halogen curing light. For the microhybrid, the halogen curing light provided the greatest surface hardness when the resin was polymerized for 40 seconds.
评估两种树脂复合材料在经受三种预热温度、三种聚合时间和两种固化灯照射时的固化深度和表面硬度。
本研究使用了两种树脂复合材料(Esthet-X和TPH)、三种聚合时间(10、20、40秒)、三种预热温度(70、100、140华氏度/21.1、37.7和60摄氏度)以及两种固化灯(卤素灯和发光二极管灯)。对于固化深度测量,针对36种变量组合制作了180个试样(直径4毫米,深度2毫米)。从顶面和底面分别获得四次努氏硬度测量值。对于表面硬度,又制作了180个(4×6毫米)圆柱形试样。每个试样切成两半,并以0.5毫米的间隔进行硬度测量。使用多因素方差分析进行统计分析,显著性水平为α = 0.05。
对于固化深度,当分析从顶面起的百分比差异时,两种复合材料的所有主要效应(时间、温度和固化灯)之间均存在统计学差异(P > 0.001)。结果表明,对于两种复合材料,无论是顶面还是底面,随着复合材料温度从70华氏度升高到140华氏度,硬度均有所增加。与卤素固化灯相比,使用发光二极管固化灯时硬度的百分比差异更大。总体而言,当树脂复合材料在140华氏度下聚合时,硬度变化更大。尽管在许多情况下未达到ISO标准,但随着温度和固化时间的增加,顶面和底面的硬度均显著增加(P < 0.001)。表面硬度结果表明,当分别分析0.5毫米和3.5毫米处的表面硬度时,硬度存在显著统计学差异(P < 0.001)。随着时间和温度的增加,混合型和微混合型复合材料的表面硬度总体上均有所增加。对于混合型和微混合型两组,随着温度升高,硬度增加且具有统计学差异(P < 0.001)。当评估70华氏度与100华氏度或70华氏度与140华氏度之间的百分比差异时,最大增幅出现在70华氏度与140华氏度之间,而100华氏度与140华氏度之间增幅最小。总体而言,对于混合型复合材料,在两个深度处,发光二极管固化灯提供的表面硬度均高于卤素固化灯。对于微混合型复合材料,当树脂聚合40秒时,卤素固化灯提供的表面硬度最大。