Depth of cure and surface microhardness of composite resin cured with blue LED curing lights

Objectives. This study examined the depth of cure and surface microhardness of Filtek Z250 composite resin (3M-Espe) (shades B1, A3, and C4) when cured with three commercially available tight emitting diode (LED) curing lights [E-light (GC), Elipar Freelight (3M-ESPE), 475H (RF Lab Systems)], compared with a high intensity quartz tungsten halogen (HQTH) light (Kerr Demetron Optilux 501) and a conventional quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) lamp (Sirona S1 dental unit). Methods. The effects of light source and resin shade were evaluated as independent variables. Depth of cure after 40 s of exposure was determined using the ISO 4049:2000 method, and Vickers hardness determined at 1.0 mm intervals. Results. HQTH and QTH lamps gave the greatest depth of cure. The three LED lights showed similar performances across all parameters, and each unit exceeded the ISO standard for depth of cure except GC ELight for shade B1. In terms of shade, LED lights gave greater curing depths with A3 shade, while QTH and HQTH tights gave greater curing depths with C4 shade. Hardness at the resin surface was not significantly different between LED and conventional curing lights, however, below the surface, hardness reduced more rapidly for the LED lights, especially at depths beyond 3 mm. Significance. Since the performance of the three LED lights meets the ISO standard for depth of cure, these systems appear suitable for routine clinical application for resin curing. (C) 2003 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Direct restorative materials use in Australia in 2002

Background: This study aimed to determine the reasons for dentists' choice of materials, in particular amalgam and resin composite, in Australia. Method: A questionnaire was developed to elicit this information. The names and addresses of 1000 dentists in Australia were selected at random. The questionnaire was mailed to these dentists with an explanatory letter and reply-paid envelope. Results: A total of 560 replies were received. Regarding choice of material, 99 per cent of respondents cited clinical indication as an influencing factor, although patients' aesthetic demands (99 per cent), patients' financial situation (82 per cent), and lecturers' suggestions (72 per cent) were also reported to influence respondents' choice of materials. Twelve per cent of respondents used composite 'always', 29 per cent 'often', 32 per cent 'sometimes', 23 per cent 'seldom' and 4 per cent 'never' in extensive load-bearing cavities in molar teeth. For composite restorations in posterior teeth, 84 per cent 'always', 'often' or 'sometimes' used the total etch technique, 84 per cent used a thick glass-ionomer layer and 36 per cent never used rubber dam. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents reported a decreased use of amalgam over the previous five years. Sixty-eight per cent of respondents agreed with the statement 'discontinuation of amalgam restricts a dentist's ability to adequately treat patients'. Seventy-five per cent considered that the growth in the use of composites increased the total cost of oral health care. Conclusions: Of the respondents from Australia 73 per cent place large composite restorations in molar teeth and their choice of material is influenced greatly by clinical indications, and patients' aesthetic demands.