Pulpal heat changes with newly developed resin photopolymerisation systems

Composite resin is a widely-used direct tooth coloured restorative material. Photoactivation of the polymerisation reaction can be achieved by visible blue light from a range of light sources, including halogen lamps, metal halide lamps, plasma arc lamps, and Light Emitting Diode (LED) lights. Concerns have been raised that curing lights may induce a temperature rise that could be detrimental to the vitality of the dental pulp during the act of photoactivation. The present study examined heat changes associated with standardised class V restorations on the buccal surface of extracted premolar teeth, using a curing time of 40 seconds. The independent effects of type of light source, resin shade and remaining tooth thickness were assessed using a matrix experimental design. When a conventional halogen lamp, a metal halide lamp and two different LED lights were compared, it was found that both LED lamps elicited minimal thermal changes at the level of the dental pulp, whereas the halogen lamp induced greater changes and the metal halide lamp caused the greatest thermal insult of all the light sources. These thermal changes were influenced by resin shade, with different patterns for LED versus halogen or halide sources. Thermal stress reduced as the remaining thickness of tooth structure between the pulp and the cavity floor increased. From these results, it is concluded that LED lights produce the least thermal insult during photopolymerisation of composite resins.

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.