Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2023
Temperature rise in photopolymerized adhesively-bonded resin composite: A thermography study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Algamaiah Hamad, Yang Jiawei, Alayed Abdulaziz, Alshabib Abdulrahman, Alshehri Abdullah, Watts David C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess visually and quantitatively the contributions of the adhesive layer photopolymerization and the subsequent resin composite increment to spatio-temporal maps of temperature at five different cavity locations, subjected to two irradiance curing protocols: standard and ultra-high.
METHODS: Caries-free molars were used to obtain 40, 2 mm thick dentin slices, randomly assigned to groups (n = 5). These slices were incorporated within 3D-printed model cavites, 4 mm deep, restored with Adhese® Universal bonding agent and 2 mm thick Tetric® Powerfill resin composite, and photocured sequentially, as follows: G1: control-empty cavity; G2: adhesive layer; G3 composite layer with no adhesive; and G4 composite layer with adhesive. The main four groups were subdivided based on two curing protocols, exposed either to standard 10 s (1.2 W/cm2) or Ultra high 3 s (3 W/cm2) irradiance modes using a Bluephase PowerCure LCU. Temperature maps were obtained, via a thermal imaging camera, and numerically analyzed at 5 locations. The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by multiple one-way ANOVA, independent t-tests and Tukey post-hoc tests (α = 0.05). Tmax, ΔT, Tint (integrated area under the curve) and time-to-reach-maximum-temperature were evaluated.
RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA showed that there was no significant interaction between light-curing time and location on the measured parameters (p > 0.05), except for the time-to-reach-maximum-temperature (p < 0.05). Curing the adhesive layer alone with the 10 s protocol resulted in a significantly increased pulpal roof temperature compared to 3 s cure (p < 0.05). Independent T-tests between G3 and G4, between 3 s and 10 s, confirmed that the adhesive agent caused no significant increases (p > 0.05) on the measured parameters. The ultra-high light-curing protocol significantly increased ΔT in composite compared to 10 s curing (p < 0.05).
SIGNIFICANCE: When the adhesive layer was photocured alone in a cavity, with a 2 mm thick dentin floor, the exothermal release of energy resulted in higher temperatures with a 10 s curing protocol, compared to a 3 s high irradiance. But when subsequently photocuring a 2 mm layer of composite, the resultant temperatures generated at pulpal roof location from the two curing protocols were similar and therefore there was no increased hazard to the dental pulp from the immediately prior adhesive photopolymerization, cured via the ultra-high irradiation protocol.
METHODS: Caries-free molars were used to obtain 40, 2 mm thick dentin slices, randomly assigned to groups (n = 5). These slices were incorporated within 3D-printed model cavites, 4 mm deep, restored with Adhese® Universal bonding agent and 2 mm thick Tetric® Powerfill resin composite, and photocured sequentially, as follows: G1: control-empty cavity; G2: adhesive layer; G3 composite layer with no adhesive; and G4 composite layer with adhesive. The main four groups were subdivided based on two curing protocols, exposed either to standard 10 s (1.2 W/cm2) or Ultra high 3 s (3 W/cm2) irradiance modes using a Bluephase PowerCure LCU. Temperature maps were obtained, via a thermal imaging camera, and numerically analyzed at 5 locations. The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by multiple one-way ANOVA, independent t-tests and Tukey post-hoc tests (α = 0.05). Tmax, ΔT, Tint (integrated area under the curve) and time-to-reach-maximum-temperature were evaluated.
RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA showed that there was no significant interaction between light-curing time and location on the measured parameters (p > 0.05), except for the time-to-reach-maximum-temperature (p < 0.05). Curing the adhesive layer alone with the 10 s protocol resulted in a significantly increased pulpal roof temperature compared to 3 s cure (p < 0.05). Independent T-tests between G3 and G4, between 3 s and 10 s, confirmed that the adhesive agent caused no significant increases (p > 0.05) on the measured parameters. The ultra-high light-curing protocol significantly increased ΔT in composite compared to 10 s curing (p < 0.05).
SIGNIFICANCE: When the adhesive layer was photocured alone in a cavity, with a 2 mm thick dentin floor, the exothermal release of energy resulted in higher temperatures with a 10 s curing protocol, compared to a 3 s high irradiance. But when subsequently photocuring a 2 mm layer of composite, the resultant temperatures generated at pulpal roof location from the two curing protocols were similar and therefore there was no increased hazard to the dental pulp from the immediately prior adhesive photopolymerization, cured via the ultra-high irradiation protocol.