Aim: To determine the microhardness of several light-curing dental restorative materials at the top surface as well as at a depth of 2mm.

Methods: Comparisons were made using different light sources. Four groups of five specimens each (3mm diameter, 2mm thick) of Z250 (composite), Filtek Flow (flowable composite), Dyract AP (compomer) and Dyract Flow (flowable compomer) were cured using different methods of exposure. The curing lights used were a Spectrum 800 halogen curing light at settings of 800 mW/cm2 and 400 mW/cm2 and an Optilux 501 ramping light. Vickers microhardness tests were performed at the top surface and at the bottom surface.

Results: Significant differences in microhardness between the top and bottom surfaces were demonstrated for all materials and with all light sources (p<0.05). The different exposures also produced significant differences (p<0.05). The light source used had less of an effect on the hardness of the compomers than the composites.

Conclusions: Effective hardness ratios between the top and bottom surfaces were achieved with all three curing protocols. The effect of total energy application must be taken into account before assumptions can be made as to the effect on hardness using different exposure methods.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1875-595x.2003.tb00747.xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dental restorative
8
restorative materials
8
top surface
8
light sources
8
flow flowable
8
effects light
4
light intensity
4
intensity method
4
method exposure
4
exposure hardness
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!