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.

Treatment of partial-thickness burns: A prospective, randomized trial using Transcyte (TM)

Background: The purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of three burns dressings (TransCyte, a bio-engineered skin substitute; Biobrane; and Silvazine cream (silver sulphadiazine and 0.2% chlorhexidine)), in treating children with partial-thickness burns. The primary objective was to determine the days until greater than or equal to90% re-epithelialization. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the number of wounds requiring autografting and the number of dressing changes/local wound care required. Methods: Study wounds were identified on each patient and the patients were randomized to receive TransCyte or Biobrane or Silvazine. Assessment of study wound closure began at 2 days after treatment and continued at least every other day thereafter until the wounds re-epithelialized or were autografted. A laser Doppler imaging system was used as an adjunct to assessing the depth of the burn. Results: Thirty-three patients with 58 wound sites enrolled in the study (TransCyte, n = 20, Biobrane, n = 17; Silvazine, n = 21). Mean time to re-epithelialization was 7.5 days for TransCyte, 9.5 days for Biobrane, and 11.2 days for Silvazine. The number of wounds requiring autografting were 5/21 (24%) for Silvazine, 3/17 (17%) for Biobrane, and 1/20 (5%) for TransCyte. Conclusions: When used in partial-thickness burns in children, TransCyte promotes fastest re-epithelialization and required less overall dressings then Biobrane or Silvazine. Patients who received Silvazine or Biobrane require more autografting than those treated with TransCyte.