This study compared the dentin shear bond strengths of currently used dentin bonding agents that were irradiated with an LED (Elipar FreeLight, 3M-ESPE) and a halogen light (VIP, BISCO). The optical characteristics of two light curing units were evaluated. Extracted human third molars were prepared to expose the occlusal dentin and the bonding procedures were performed under the irradiation with each light curing unit. The dentin bonding agents used in this study were Scotchbond Multipurpose (3M ESPE), Single Bond (3M ESPE), One-Step (Bisco), Clearfil SE bond (Kuraray), and Adper Prompt (3M ESPE). The shear test was performed by employing the design of a chisel-on-iris supported with a Teflon wall. The fractured dentin surface was observed with SEM to determine the failure mode.

The spectral appearance of the LED light curing unit was different from that of the halogen light curing unit in terms of maximum peak and distribution. The LED LCU (maximum peak in 465 ㎚) shows a narrower spectral distribution than the halogen LCU (maximum peak in 487 ㎚). With the exception of the Clearfil SE bond (P < 0.05), each 4 dentin bonding agents showed no significant difference between the halogen light-cured group and the LED light-cured group in the mean shear bond strength (P > 0.05).

The results can be explained by the strong correlation between the absorption spectrum of cam-phoroquinone and the narrow emission spectrum of LED.

The aim of this study was to measure the cusp deflection during composite restoration for MOD cavity in premolar and to examine the influence of cavity dimension, C-factor and restoration method on the cusp deflection.

Thirty extracted maxillary premolar were prepared to four different sizes of MOD cavity and divided into six groups. The width and depth of the cavity were as follows. Group 1; 1.5 × 1 mm, Group 2; 1.5 × 2 mm, Group 3; 3 × 1 mm, and Group 4-6; 3 × 2 mm respectively. Group 1-4 were restored using bulk filling method with Z-250 composite. However, Group 5 was restored incrementally, and Group 6 was restored with an indirect resin inlay.

The cusp deflection was recorded at the buccal and lingual cusp tips using LVDT probe for 10,000 seconds. The measured cusp deflections were compared between groups, and the relationship between the cube of the length of cavity wall/the cube of the thickness of cavity wall (L³ / T³), C-factor and cusp deflection or %flexure (100 × cuspal deflection / cavity width) was analyzed.

The cusp deflection of Group 1-4 were 12.1 µm, 17.2 µm, 16.2 µm and 26.4 µm respectively. The C-factor was related to the %flexure rather than the cusp deflection. There was a strong positive correlationship between the L³ / T³ and the cusp deflection. The cusp deflection of Group 5 and 6 were 17.4 µm and 17.9 µm respectively, which are much lower value than that of Group 4.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of preparation with GT files and profiles .04 in shaping of root canals and reconstruct the three-dimensional root canal system using micro computed tomography.

40 canals of the extracted human mandibular molars were used, and randomly distributed into two experimental groups. In group 1, canals were prepared by GT files. In group 2, Profiles .04. were used. Apical preparation size was #30.

For each tooth pre and post operative cross-sectional images were obtained by the micro CT at 50 micron intervals. Pre and post operative cross-sectional images of 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8mm from the apex were compared. For each section, canal area and centering ratio were determined. For each tooth pre- and post-operative root canal volume from the furcation to the apex of the roots was calculated by three-dimensional image software. Following results were obtained:

1. At 8mm from the apex, area of dentin removed by GT rotary file was significantly larger than that by Profile .04. And at the other levels there was not a significant difference.

2. There was a trend for GT rotary file to remain more centered in the canals than Profile .04 at all levels. But at 3mm level, there was a statistically significant difference.

3. In root canal volume increments after instrumentation, there was no significant difference between two groups.