The journal of contemporary dental practice · 2008
Influence of irradiance on the push-out bond strength of composite restorations photoactivated by LED.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Segreto Dario, Brandt William Cunha, Correr-Sobrinho Lourenco, Sinhoreti Mario Alexandre Coelho, Consani Simonides
Аннотация
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the bond strength of resin composites to dental structure photoactivated with a light emitting diode (LED) curing unit.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred bovine incisors were selected and a conical cavity was prepared in the facial surface of each tooth. Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray CO., LTD. Osaka, Japan) adhesive system was applied, and the cavities were filled with a single increment of Filtektrade mark Z250 (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) or Esthet-X (Dentsply-Caulk - Mildford, DE, USA). The specimens were assigned to ten groups (n=10) according to the irradiance used: 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500 mW/cm(2). Photoactivation was accomplished using an Ultrablue IS LED (DMC Equipamentos LTDA, São Carlos, SP, Brazil). The radiant exposure time was kept constant. A push-out test was conducted in a universal testing machine. Bond strength values were submitted to a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a Tukey's test at the 5% significance level.
RESULTS: The bond strength of the Z250 was higher than the Eshet-X (p<0.05). However, the modulation of irradiance adjusted to the same radiant exposure had no influence on Z250. The bond strength using an irradiance of 100mW/cm(2) was higher than the other levels for Esthet-X. When composites were compared, no significant differences were detected between them for activation with irradiances of 100 and 200 mW/cm(2).
CONCLUSION: The modulation of the luminous energy emitted by LED was almost unable to provide significant differences among the groups for both composites, except for a lower irradiance of Esthet-X.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred bovine incisors were selected and a conical cavity was prepared in the facial surface of each tooth. Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray CO., LTD. Osaka, Japan) adhesive system was applied, and the cavities were filled with a single increment of Filtektrade mark Z250 (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) or Esthet-X (Dentsply-Caulk - Mildford, DE, USA). The specimens were assigned to ten groups (n=10) according to the irradiance used: 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500 mW/cm(2). Photoactivation was accomplished using an Ultrablue IS LED (DMC Equipamentos LTDA, São Carlos, SP, Brazil). The radiant exposure time was kept constant. A push-out test was conducted in a universal testing machine. Bond strength values were submitted to a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a Tukey's test at the 5% significance level.
RESULTS: The bond strength of the Z250 was higher than the Eshet-X (p<0.05). However, the modulation of irradiance adjusted to the same radiant exposure had no influence on Z250. The bond strength using an irradiance of 100mW/cm(2) was higher than the other levels for Esthet-X. When composites were compared, no significant differences were detected between them for activation with irradiances of 100 and 200 mW/cm(2).
CONCLUSION: The modulation of the luminous energy emitted by LED was almost unable to provide significant differences among the groups for both composites, except for a lower irradiance of Esthet-X.