Influence of light guide tip used in the photo-activation on degree of conversion and hardness of one nanofilled dental composite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the degree of conversion and hardness of a dental composite resin Filtek (TM) Z-350 (3M ESPE, Dental Products St. Paul, MN) photo-activated for 20 s of irradiation time with two different light guide tips, metal and polymer, coupled on blue LED Ultraled LCU (Dabi Atlante, SP, Brazil). With the metal light tip, power density was of 352 and with the polymer was of 456 mW/cm(2), respectively. Five samples (4 mm in diameter and 2mm in thickness-ISO 4049), were made for each Group evaluated. The measurements for DC (%) were made in a Nexus-470 FT-IR, Thermo Nicolet, E.U.A. Spectroscopy (FTIR). Spectra for both uncured and cured samples were analyzed using an accessory of reflectance diffuse. The measurements were recorded in absorbance operating under the following conditions: 32 scans, 4 cm(-1) resolution, 300-4000 cm(-1) wavelength. The percentage of unreacted carbon double bonds (% C=C) was determined from the ratio of absorbance intensities of aliphatic C=C (peak at 1637 cm(-1)) against internal standard before and after curing of the sample: aromatic C-C (peak at 1610 cm(-1)). The Vickers hardness measurements (top and bottom surfaces) were performed in a universal testing machine (Buehler MMT-3 digital microhardness tester Lake Bluff, Illinois USA). A 50 gf load was used and the indenter with a dwell time of 30 s. The data were submitted to the test t Student at significance level of 5%. The mean values of degree of conversion for the polymer and metal light guide tip no were statistically different (p = 0.8389). The hardness mean values were no statistically significant different among the light guide tips (p = 0.6244), however, there was difference between top and bottom surfaces (p < 0.001). The results show that so much the polymer light tip as the metal light tip can be used for the photo-activation, probably for the low quality of the light guide tip metal.

Bond Strength and Etching Pattern of Adhesive Systems to Enamel: Effects of Conditioning Time and Enamel Preparation

Statement of the problem: The performance of self-etch systems on enamel is controversial and seems to be dependent on the application technique and the enamel preparation. Purpose of the Study: To examine the effects of conditioning time and enamel surface preparation on bond strength and etching pattern of adhesive systems to enamel. Materials and Methods: Ninety-six teeth were divided into 16 conditions (N = 6) in function of enamel preparation and conditioning time for bond strength test. The adhesive systems OptiBond FL (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA), OptiBond SOLO Plus (Kerr), Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), and Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) were applied on unground or ground enamel following the manufacturers` directions or doubling the conditioning time. Cylinders of Filtek Flow (0.5-mm height) were applied to each bonded enamel surface using a Tygon tube (0.7 mm in diameter; Saint-Gobain Corp., Aurora, OH, USA). After storage (24 h/37 degrees C), the specimens were subjected to shear force (0.5 mm/min). The data were treated by a three-way analysis of variance and Tukey`s test (alpha = 0.05). The failure modes of the debonded interfaces and the etching pattern of adhesives were observed using scanning electron microscopy. Results: Only the main factor ""adhesive"" was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The lowest bond strength value was observed for OptiBond FL. The most defined etching pattern was observed for 35% phosphoric acid and for Adper Prompt L-Pop. Mixed failures were observed for all adhesives, but OptiBond FL showed cohesive failures in resin predominantly. Conclusions: The increase in the conditioning time as well as the enamel pretreatment did not provide an increase in the resin-enamel bond strength values for the studied adhesives. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The surface enamel preparation and the conditioning time do not affect the performance of self-etch systems to enamel. (J Esthet Restor Dent 20:322-336, 2008)