Knoop microhardness and FT-Raman evaluation of composite resins: influence of opacity and photoactivation source

The aim of this study was to evaluate the degree of conversion by Knoop microhardness (KHN) and FT-Raman spectroscopy (FTIR) of one nanofilled (Filtek Supreme-3M-ESPE [FS]) and one microhybrid composite (Charisma-Heraeus-Kulzer [CH]), each with different opacities, namely enamel, dentin, and translucent, which were photo-activated by a quartz-tungsten-halogen lamp (QTH) and a light-emitting diode (LED). Resin was bulk inserted into a disc-shaped mold that was 2.0 mm thick and 4 mm in diameter, obtaining 10 samples per group. KHN and FTIR values were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α = 0.05). Nanofilled resin activated by a LED presented higher microhardness values than samples activated by a QTH for dentin opacity (p < 0.05). The microhybrid resin showed no differences in KHN or FTIR values with different activation sources or opacity. The nanofilled dentin and enamel resins showed lower FTIR values than the translucent resin. The KHN values of the translucent resins were not influenced by the light source.

Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile3 digital models

The aim of this study was to determine the reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements in digital models compared to plaster models. Fifteen pairs of plaster models were obtained from orthodontic patients with permanent dentition before treatment. These were digitized to be evaluated with the program Cécile3 v2.554.2 beta. Two examiners measured three times the mesiodistal width of all the teeth present, intercanine, interpremolar and intermolar distances, overjet and overbite. The plaster models were measured using a digital vernier. The t-Student test for paired samples and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used for statistical analysis. The ICC of the digital models were 0.84 ± 0.15 (intra-examiner) and 0.80 ± 0.19 (inter-examiner). The average mean difference of the digital models was 0.23 ± 0.14 and 0.24 ± 0.11 for each examiner, respectively. When the two types of measurements were compared, the values obtained from the digital models were lower than those obtained from the plaster models (p < 0.05), although the differences were considered clinically insignificant (differences < 0.1 mm). The Cécile digital models are a clinically acceptable alternative for use in Orthodontics.